Skip to content

Conversation

samrose
Copy link
Collaborator

@samrose samrose commented Aug 25, 2025

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • coupled with a PR for internal repo
  • adds gatekeeper private flake, but follows nixpkgs for this flake
  • passes in an arg to use go 1.24 since that is not the default go version we're using in nixpkgs in this flake
  • packages gatekeeper by using the https://flake.parts/ pattern of creating a module with configuration for the package at nix/packages/gatekeeper.nix and then uses the package in nix/packages/default.nix

I will follow up with an explanation as to why we use this flake-parts approach soon.

The fundamental reasons are discussed at https://flake.parts/index.html

@samrose samrose requested review from a team as code owners August 25, 2025 19:31
@steve-chavez
Copy link
Member

packages gatekeeper by using the https://flake.parts/ pattern of creating a module with configuration for the package at nix/packages/gatekeeper.nix and then uses the package in nix/packages/default.nix

@samrose What's the advantage of the above compared to callPackage? Overall looks like the flake way is much more verbose.

@samrose
Copy link
Collaborator Author

samrose commented Aug 26, 2025

packages gatekeeper by using the https://flake.parts/ pattern of creating a module with configuration for the package at nix/packages/gatekeeper.nix and then uses the package in nix/packages/default.nix

@samrose What's the advantage of the above compared to callPackage? Overall looks like the flake way is much more verbose.

@steve-chavez for what it's worth, here are the advantages to using flakes, and the flake-parts framework https://gist.github.com/samrose/a9a19b7fad0aed8fd8355bdf0b87df08

@staaldraad
Copy link
Member

this and #1765 are directly related. I don't feel like merging the two into one version though, as the change in 1765 is pretty significant already.

@samrose samrose requested a review from hunleyd August 31, 2025 18:40
@samrose
Copy link
Collaborator Author

samrose commented Aug 31, 2025

this and #1765 are directly related. I don't feel like merging the two into one version though, as the change in 1765 is pretty significant already.

@staaldraad I personally support whatever works best for you. I only created this PR to trigger some of the tests and builds and checks that let us know things are working as desired + give a simpler way to see changs. But thought you could either use this PR, or move work as you see fit.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants