lib.oldestSupportedReleaseIsAtLeast: rename from bad name

[roberth]

…and deprecate after 24.11

It seems impossible to describe this condition more concisely without making it incomprehensible.

I've considered removing the old end-of-life gates, but they're still useful as "comments" that describe when an alias was deprecated, and we could instead remove the aliases altogether. We could set a policy for that, but I'd like to do one thing at a time.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[infinisil]

This is maybe a bit too long, but I think it's a much better description:

Suggested change

	cartesianProductOfSets = warnIf (oldestSupportedReleaseIsAtLeast 2405)
	"lib.cartesianProductOfSets is a deprecated alias of lib.cartesianProduct." cartesianProduct;
	cartesianProductOfSets = warnIf (allSupportedReleasesSupportAlternativeOriginallyIntroducedIn 2405)
	"lib.cartesianProductOfSets is a deprecated alias of lib.cartesianProduct." cartesianProduct;

Hard to remove parts without distorting the meaning though :/

[roberth]

The difference is that this description includes the policy, whereas mine only describes the mechanism. I think that's a sensible rule of thumb.

The policy should be documented, certainly, but maybe not in the name of the function.

Also, more high level level functions are possible, such as

foo =
  deprecateForAlternativeIn
    2405
    "use bar instead of foo"
    bar;
# or similar to `mkRenamedOptionModule` iirc, though could be misread
foo = deprecate { old = "package foo"; new = "bar"; sinceRelease 2405; } bar;

Also, such a function could both warn and throw if we decide a standard time frame for that.

Anyway, before veering too far off topic, I think we could do with a slightly better named low level function first.
It will save a few brain cycles when developing the higher level ones.

[infinisil]

Makes sense and again reminds me of NixOS/rfcs#33 :)