pkgs. is redundant as well

@danbst you can arrange it such that it is, but I don't know whether that's an improvement. It may make conforming with nbp's security idea easier, but otherwise it just obfuscates the still existing possibility of depending on arbitrary parts of the final package set.

@Ericson2314 did you make any progress on the drv differences from these changes?

@roberth Not sure what you mean. There's a with pkgs; at the very top of all-packages.nix so everything is in scope already and you don't need to use pkgs.. It's what is being done in the rest of that file as well.

@roberth the nbp's security proposal forbids this:

pkgs: super:
rec {
  ...
}

but it is not a case for all-packages.nix now (like @infinisil mentioned). It is:

pkgs: super:
with pkgs; {
  ...
}

And this is fine

@danbst, I read that as deleting the whole pkgs parameter, perhaps relying on callPackage.

I prefer to avoid the with keyword with the repl as the only exception, because it makes finding a declaration harder and it makes static scope checking impossible.

My original goal was to solve the previous inconsistent naming as done in #51401.
I don't feel very strongly about this pr, so feel free to improve it as you please.

closing in favor of #55061