Move various packages out of gnome scope

[jtojnar]

Description of changes

We have been slowly disbanding it since it offers little benefit.

Extracted from #319535

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:
  • nixosTests.{gnome,gnome-xorg,cinnamon,pantheon}
  • 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.

[doronbehar]

Diff and commits look good, and I'm not against this change, but I don't fully understand the motivation for it.

[jtojnar]

Mainly, the consensus of GNOME maintainers a long time ago was that the scope is more trouble than it’s worth:

• Overlays are even harder (overrideScope required).
• Referring to non-leaf packages outside the scope is annoying – callPackage can only inject the scope, and overriding the dependencies requires modifying the scope.
• Attributes already have gnome- as prefix so it would be duplicated in the scope name.
• Selection criteria are unclear – should this just be core package set?
• Upstream package status is fluent – what should we do if an app becomes a part of core, what if it gets removed?
• Main benefit was ability to update all GNOME packages at once but we still needed to do libraries like GLib or GTK manually. Nowadays we use predicate matching on updateScript name but there is still room for improvement (e.g. adding tags).

Edit: Added a comment to the top of the scope.

[doronbehar]

OK then, I fully support this PR.

[emilylange]

Can you please squash all those /Move from gnome scope to top-level/ commits into a single treewide one?

[doronbehar]

I tend to like how there the PR is split to multiple commits - makes reviewing easier.

[linsui]

Why are some packages still kept in gnome scope? And I thought we should add some aliases?

[jtojnar]

It is lot of work so I am doing it in waves – more will be come later (help appreciated). Aliases should have been added – if I missed any we should fix that.

[linsui]

Ah, sorry, I forgot that I disabled allowAliases. 🤦 it takes me some time to figure out which packages are moved and fix all of them.