Could be areas of improvement as well

      • Atemu@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because other distros usually can’t have multiple versions of the same library to begin with.

        • thejevans@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If these these applications can coexist in other distros, and they can only have one version of Qt, then that means packages in NixOS are overly strict about library versions. I don’t really care what the underlying reason is for this issue, I just know it’s an issue exclusive to NixOS that frustrates me.

          • Atemu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, the actual issue was an impurity (not working in Nix’ pure model). Impurity is a bug; it was fixed years ago.

          • Atemu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That being said, the statement that symbol conflicts do not exist on other distros is plainly not true.

            I have never claimed such a thing.

            Classical distros have exactly one instance of a library ABI’s .so in most cases which is usually the only place where any given symbol is defined.

            You could technically provoke a symbol conflict using LD_PRELOAD and the like but it’s not something you commonly run into because package upgrades always replace the previous version entirely.

            You could technically have multiple conflicting sos on classical distros too by prefixing a more detailed version but you don’t; doing such things kinda what differentiates Nix from classical package management.

            This QT issue in particular was an impurity (working outside of Nix’ pure model; not as intended) caused by “installing” qt libraries into your environment imperatively (which isn’t something you should do anyways) that was solved a couple years ago.