Wrappers vs. Dotfiles: Difference between revisions
imported>Fzakaria Remove incorrect suggestion |
imported>Fzakaria Added a link to the cookbook to keep all output files |
||
Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
} | } | ||
</syntaxhighlight> | </syntaxhighlight> | ||
The disadvantage of this way is that it doesn't propagate man pages and other paths from the old derivation. | |||
Please refer to [[Nix_Cookbook#Wrapping_packages]] to possible solutions to retain all outputs. | |||
=== Downside of the Wrapper Approach === | === Downside of the Wrapper Approach === |
Revision as of 04:56, 22 July 2020
Usually user applications (like editors, etc.) get configured through dotfiles in the user's home directory. An alternative, declarative approach is to create wrappers for application on a per-user basis, like this:
{
users.users.root.packages = [
(pkgs.writeScriptBin "htop" ''
#! ${pkgs.bash}/bin/bash
export HTOPRC=${pkgs.writeText "htoprc" ...}
exec ${pkgs.htop}/bin/htop "$@"
'')
];
}
The disadvantage of this way is that it doesn't propagate man pages and other paths from the old derivation. Please refer to Nix_Cookbook#Wrapping_packages to possible solutions to retain all outputs.
Downside of the Wrapper Approach
- There might be applications that don't provide means to specify configuration. One could override
$HOME
, but then there might be applications that require$HOME
for other stuff than configuration. - Applications cannot write their configuration anymore, e.g.
htop
will just terminate without error and nothing changed.
Alternatives
- Home Manager manages dotfiles in the user's home directory