100 lines
No EOL
5.9 KiB
JSON
100 lines
No EOL
5.9 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"uuid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "d753217f-2d8f-431d-850c-d54597b46b76"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"type": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_id": "daily_email",
|
|
"target_type": "node_type",
|
|
"target_uuid": "8bde1f2f-eef9-4f2d-ae9c-96921f8193d7"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_timestamp": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:02+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_log": [],
|
|
"status": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"uid": [
|
|
{
|
|
"target_type": "user",
|
|
"target_uuid": "b8966985-d4b2-42a7-a319-2e94ccfbb849"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"title": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "Why I use nixpkgs-unstable"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"created": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-01-22T00:00:00+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"changed": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "2025-05-11T09:00:02+00:00"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"promote": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"sticky": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": false
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"default_langcode": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"revision_translation_affected": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": true
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"path": [
|
|
{
|
|
"alias": "\/daily\/2025\/01\/22\/nixpkgs-unstable",
|
|
"langcode": "en"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"body": [
|
|
{
|
|
"value": "\n <p>In the majority of my <code>flake.nix<\/code> files, such as the one <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oliverdavies.uk\/daily\/2025\/01\/19\/minimum-viable-development-environment\">I've been experimenting with for Drupal projects<\/a>, I use <code>nixpkgs-unstable<\/code> as my primary input.<\/p>\n\n<p>The nixpkgs package manager has two major releases a year, in May and November, which would be 24.05 and 24.11 for 2024 respectively.<\/p>\n\n<p>Using <code>nixpkgs-unstable<\/code>, I get the latest packages and NixOS options and don't need to wait for the next major stable release.<\/p>\n\n<p>But doesn't that make things more likely to break when updating?<\/p>\n\n<p>The number of backwards incompatible changes and breakages on unstable are minimal, but I'd rather deal with small issues and updates regularly rather than only twice a year.<\/p>\n\n<p>Small updates more often are better, in my opinion.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, what if there is an issue with a package that I'm using, such as a build issue, regression or incompatibility?<\/p>\n\n<p>With flakes, I can import multiple versions of nixpkgs in the same configuration and use them where the configuration I need to.<\/p>\n\n<p>I need to in one project, I've added an input with nixpkgs pinned to a specific Git commit in the nixpkgs repository as some packages are using outdated versions and are no longer present in the latest releases.<\/p>\n\n<p>It's not all or nothing, I can pick which packages to be unstable and which I want to use stable or use older versions.<\/p>\n\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/code.oliverdavies.uk\/opdavies\/dotfiles\/src\/commit\/a5c1c891020c5026ca1c2d83afd6cbe8002a136c\/flake.nix\">my dotfiles repository<\/a> for an example, where I have four versions of nixpkgs imported - including unstable and master, which is even newer.<\/p>\n\n<p>Every input is still locked in the <code>flake.lock<\/code> file, so everything is still reproducible whichever versions of nixpkgs I decide to use.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"format": "full_html",
|
|
"processed": "\n <p>In the majority of my <code>flake.nix<\/code> files, such as the one <a href=\"https:\/\/www.oliverdavies.uk\/daily\/2025\/01\/19\/minimum-viable-development-environment\">I've been experimenting with for Drupal projects<\/a>, I use <code>nixpkgs-unstable<\/code> as my primary input.<\/p>\n\n<p>The nixpkgs package manager has two major releases a year, in May and November, which would be 24.05 and 24.11 for 2024 respectively.<\/p>\n\n<p>Using <code>nixpkgs-unstable<\/code>, I get the latest packages and NixOS options and don't need to wait for the next major stable release.<\/p>\n\n<p>But doesn't that make things more likely to break when updating?<\/p>\n\n<p>The number of backwards incompatible changes and breakages on unstable are minimal, but I'd rather deal with small issues and updates regularly rather than only twice a year.<\/p>\n\n<p>Small updates more often are better, in my opinion.<\/p>\n\n<p>But, what if there is an issue with a package that I'm using, such as a build issue, regression or incompatibility?<\/p>\n\n<p>With flakes, I can import multiple versions of nixpkgs in the same configuration and use them where the configuration I need to.<\/p>\n\n<p>I need to in one project, I've added an input with nixpkgs pinned to a specific Git commit in the nixpkgs repository as some packages are using outdated versions and are no longer present in the latest releases.<\/p>\n\n<p>It's not all or nothing, I can pick which packages to be unstable and which I want to use stable or use older versions.<\/p>\n\n<p>See <a href=\"https:\/\/code.oliverdavies.uk\/opdavies\/dotfiles\/src\/commit\/a5c1c891020c5026ca1c2d83afd6cbe8002a136c\/flake.nix\">my dotfiles repository<\/a> for an example, where I have four versions of nixpkgs imported - including unstable and master, which is even newer.<\/p>\n\n<p>Every input is still locked in the <code>flake.lock<\/code> file, so everything is still reproducible whichever versions of nixpkgs I decide to use.<\/p>\n\n ",
|
|
"summary": null
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"feeds_item": [
|
|
{
|
|
"imported": "1970-01-01T00:33:45+00:00",
|
|
"guid": null,
|
|
"hash": "0c86a05ca569c1a814e9706841378658",
|
|
"target_type": "feeds_feed",
|
|
"target_uuid": "90c85284-7ca8-4074-9178-97ff8384fe76"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
} |