Nix Rust | 667 Members | |
| Rust | 154 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 23 Jul 2025 | ||
| 17:47:31 | |
| * >90% of Rust packages will already have that dependency and it's just a lightweight Python script, yeah? | 17:47:36 | |
| I worry about inf-rec since the fetch-cargo-vendor-util depends on cargo, which depends on cargoSetupHook IIRC. I havr not tried it though | 17:50:46 | |
| * I worry about inf-rec since the fetch-cargo-vendor-util depends on cargo, which depends on cargoSetupHook IIRC. I have not tried it though | 17:51:03 | |
| usually we use overrides to solve that | 17:54:18 | |
(cargoSetupHook.override { fetch-cargo-vendor-util = null; }) | 17:54:29 | |
| True | 17:54:45 | |
| I'm assuming that some people are using a custom implementation for vendoring. (e.g. for some authentication logic IDK) and their logic assumes that cargoSetupHook expects an unpacked cargo vendor structure. But maybe I'm overthinking this. Yes getting rid of the two steps would be healthier for easier overriding of hashes via overrideAttrs Anyways, I have to go now... I'll be back in an hour or so, sorry! | 17:59:23 | |
| we could expect such users to override it out of the setup hook | 18:00:53 | |
| we probably should have added a marker though 😅 | 18:01:04 | |
| wait | 18:01:08 | |
can't we just add a passthru.isFetchCargoVendor to fetchCargoVendor | 18:01:17 | |
| and add the dep and logic conditionally based on that at eval time? | 18:01:24 | |
based on cargoDeps | 18:01:34 | |
oh the issue is that we don't have access to cargoDeps at that point… | 18:01:39 | |
| Yeah, setup hooks don't know nix values... | 18:03:30 | |
| | 18:06:12 | |
| 25 Jul 2025 | ||
| 01:43:15 | ||
| 26 Jul 2025 | ||
| 08:28:46 | ||
| @Toma I rebased + reran your treewide to resolve the merge conflicts, will also run nixpkgs-review for darwin and linux in a bit, but otherwise I think it’s good to go? | 08:46:24 | |
| oh great already new merge conflicts since I rebased 🫠 | 08:47:52 | |
individual PRs removing useFetchCargoVendor by themselves makes this pretty hard | 08:50:23 | |
| I’d suggest anyone reading here to stop requesting PRs to remove it themselves, except for new packages of course | 08:50:47 | |
In reply to @niklaskorz:matrix.org As discussed earlier, we were considering waiting until https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/423228 gets into stable so that we can do this treewide both on stable and master, to avoid much of the backporting issues. So maybe we can deal with a few backporting conflicts until then. idk, what do you think is better? | 09:27:40 | |
| my opinion: maintainers are already removing the attribute individually in master, meaning they already have to deal with the backporting conflicts, so I think having the treewide land now is the easier approach to at least have it consistent | 09:29:59 | |
| Can someone from the Rust team (is that a thing?) ACK the PR? I don't feel like merging this beast myself. | 09:30:55 | |
| -next-25.05 is due soon | 09:31:19 | |
| like within next couple days l | 09:31:28 | |
| * | 09:31:34 | |
| there's a big security fix | 09:31:38 | |