Nicolas Pierron <nicolas.b.pier...@nbp.name> schrieb am Fr., 17. März 2017 um 22:36 Uhr:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Benno Fünfstück > <benno.fuenfstu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > One thing that is nicer about `self.callPackage` though is that you can > > follow the rule "whenever taking something from self does not lead > infinite > > recursion, take it from self" when writing overrides. > > And we should not advertise that, because this would lead to packages > which are not patched, under the rules of the future security-update > work. > So whatever you think this is simpler or not, this is incorrect, I > guess we could nullify these functions in the latest layer, preventing > callPackage to ever be used through `self`. > Oh, why would that lead to not applying security updates? I'm not very familar with "future security-update work", but that sounds unexpected to me. What's so deeply magical about security updates?
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
