treewide: remove deprecations after 24.11 branch-off

[wolfgangwalther]

Continuation of #356732, but for stuff to be removed after 24.11's branch-off. Thus, no backport. I only grepped for "24.11", not for patterns like "to be removed in 25.05" - those have a lot more time.

IIUC, needs #356732 to be merged, because of overrideScope'.

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/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 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.

[wolfgangwalther]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 358735 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package blacklisted:

• nixos-install-tools

1 package built:

• nixpkgs-manual

---

Not much happening here.

[emilazy]

I think we can do the 25.05 ones that don’t have immediate blockers too (e.g. CUDA stuff needs some work); better to get it over with early in the release cycle. (But non‐blocking.)

[wolfgangwalther]

I think we can do the 25.05 ones that don’t have immediate blockers too (e.g. CUDA stuff needs some work); better to get it over with early in the release cycle. (But non‐blocking.)

That's true, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes more than I already do with this one. Whoever added those TODOs for 25.05 still has time.

[wolfgangwalther]

I did add one more removal for pkgs.cinnamon, though. I missed that earlier. @bobby285271 @mkg20001 did I get the intention of that TODO right?

[bobby285271]

Oh yes, removing the scope is my plan (other than the cinnamon-common rename, keeping the lib.warn spams a lot right now like the gnome scope).

Similar to #326687, do you mind also adding e.g. cinnamon = throw "The cinnamon scope has been removed and all packages have been moved to the top-level"; to pkgs/top-level/aliases.nix?

[wolfgangwalther]

Similar to #326687, do you mind also adding e.g. cinnamon = throw "The `cinnamon` scope has been removed and all packages have been moved to the top-level"; to pkgs/top-level/aliases.nix?

Did that!