add a minimal example for standalone home-manager.

[shirakami-chigusa]

It is related to #102

This example is minimal flakes to check standalone home-manager.

home-manager switch --flake .

Because standalone home-manager and modular home-manager have different configuration parameters, you need to ensure that blueprint works correctly.

[phaer]

Is it a deliberate choice to test against 24.11 here?

All the other templates use unstable, and while it might be ideal to test against both, I'd like to keep it consistent here If there's no reason against it?

[phaer]

It's a bit annoying that this doesn't actually now. This is due to CI not evaluating the homeConfiguration. There's also no real homeConfiguration attribute, but it's crammed into legacyPackages (complained about this before here #77 (comment)) and therefore not evaluated.
We probably have to get rid of that hack before this template will be useful for CI checks (or add another special-case to checks).

But can confirm that this helps reproducing #102 with either the home manager cli
home-manager build --flake .#me@myhost or just a simple nix build of the same attribute: nix build .\#legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.homeConfigurations."me@myhost". So thank you!

[JumpIn-Git]

It's a bit annoying that this doesn't actually now. This is due to CI not evaluating the homeConfiguration. There's also no real homeConfiguration attribute, but it's crammed into legacyPackages (complained about this before here #77 (comment)) and therefore not evaluated. We probably have to get rid of that hack before this template will be useful for CI checks (or add another special-case to checks).

But can confirm that this helps reproducing #102 with either the home manager cli home-manager build --flake .#me@myhost or just a simple nix build of the same attribute: nix build .\#legacyPackages.x86_64-linux.homeConfigurations."me@myhost". So thank you!

could you review #106?

[phaer]

could you review #106?

I've been planning to, but please don't push me - I am not getting paid for this either :-P

The whole reason I asked for this template and was pondering about how to handle this on the CI side of things is to hopefully make it more stable; a feature I personally don't even have an interest in.

If it's urgent for you, you can always use the last commit before it broke.

[JumpIn-Git]

could you review #106?

I've been planning to, but please don't push me - I am not getting paid for this either :-P

The whole reason I asked for this template and was pondering about how to handle this on the CI side of things is to hopefully make it more stable; a feature I personally don't even have an interest in.

If it's urgent for you, you can always use the last commit before it broke.

sorry about that, sometimes im too enforcing without noticing

[phaer]

All good! To be clear: it's totally fair to ask after a while, I just understood as a bit pushy as was so quickly after the other merge, but in hindsight that might have been an over-interpretation. Thanks for your PR in any case :)