treewide/nixos: remove with lib; part 2

[Stunkymonkey]

Description of changes

part of #208242

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[philiptaron]

I was only able to find a few defects in this batch.

[NickCao]

This breaks the evaluation of fcitx5: #338621

[eclairevoyant]

Also lib.optionalFile is not a function that exists, how did it get caught up in this treewide? Can you post the script you used?

[Ma27]

Also lib.optionalFile is not a function that exists, how did it get caught up in this treewide

I think the core issue here is that most of the changes just weren't tested, right?

With #339185 and #338859 I count at least three regressions.

[eclairevoyant]

Both are issues. I'm asking for the script so we know the magnitude of the mistake.

[philiptaron]

Both are issues. I'm asking for the script so we know the magnitude of the mistake.

I asked Felix (@Stunkymonkey) for the same thing and received this: #335603 (comment)

[eclairevoyant]

Thanks, I'll continue the conversation on that PR then.