We're currently creating pkgs and pkgs-unstable like this within our mkNixos function. We configure them on creation to allow unfree, and use our specified system.
However, it's been recommended by smart people to instead use stuff like nixpkgs.config.allowUnfree within the system. I'm fine with this.
However, I'm not sure on how this could hypothetically be done for pkgs-unstable. The nixpkgs options only reference, well, nixpkgs, not nixpkgs-unstable.
And, how would we even get pkgs-unstable into the specialArgs without using import nixpkgs-unstable? Maybe we would use that other way of grabbing it I've seen with legacyPackages?
Stay where we're at, with a more "incorrect" setup, but consistency
Be inconsistent, so nixpkgs is configured via nixpkgs.config.allowUnfree, while nixpkgs-unstable is still configured via import inputs.nixpkgs-unstable
We're currently creating
pkgsandpkgs-unstablelike this within ourmkNixosfunction. We configure them on creation to allow unfree, and use our specified system.However, it's been recommended by smart people to instead use stuff like
nixpkgs.config.allowUnfreewithin the system. I'm fine with this.However, I'm not sure on how this could hypothetically be done for
pkgs-unstable. Thenixpkgsoptions only reference, well,nixpkgs, notnixpkgs-unstable.And, how would we even get
pkgs-unstableinto thespecialArgswithout usingimport nixpkgs-unstable? Maybe we would use that other way of grabbing it I've seen withlegacyPackages?I've been recommend to use the numtide nixpkgs wrapper. I'd prefer not to do this.
I see several options:
nixpkgsis configured vianixpkgs.config.allowUnfree, whilenixpkgs-unstableis still configured viaimport inputs.nixpkgs-unstable