Nixpkgs does not assume Denver that's why we run if possible the package's tests, our own tests and build dependent packages to make sure the most obvious breakages are noticed before things are even merged.
Ah, I thought you were saying that if we all just used e2e tests to ensure we didn't make breaking changes in minor versions, we'd be fine. I didn't realize you were talking about the downstream package's tests.
I do still take issue with your insinuation that it's the package maintainers' poor practices that are at fault here. The real world is a messy, complex place and "best practices" don't translate well from situation to situation.
OP didn't ask for their package to be included in Nix. Presumably OP's system works for them and for their use case, but whoever created the Nix package made assumptions that turned out to be flawed. It's not fair of you to say that those bad assumptions are OP's fault because their package isn't "properly maintained" and doesn't "work as it should".
Someone (you?) made a bad assumption. Don't cast blame for that on someone who only knows Nix exists because it sends phony bug reports their way.
