| 22 May 2025 |
 emily | Alyssa Ross: do you have a preference between the diffs of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/408710/files and https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/407790/files? they both fix pkgsStatic.buildPackages.rustc on Darwin, and they'll both leave some other cases unavoidably silently weird/broken (I think maybe slightly different cases between them). the original PR no longer depends on pkgsStatic. it's a bit more noisy but saves a rustc build. the other one is a smaller diff / fewer moving parts, but the ordering change is sort of unprincipled (albeit I think likely to make the build go through in strictly more cases than the status quo) | 09:02:30 |
 Alyssa Ross | I don't think I mind either | 09:06:36 |
| Alyssa Ross | I'd still really like to see the custom target specs eventually | 09:06:50 |
| Alyssa Ross | Consider them both acked | 09:06:59 |
| emily | me too, but cleaning up Rust is more work than I have the capacity for right now :( | 09:08:32 |
| emily | honestly we should really build std in a separate derivation always, I think | 09:08:40 |
| emily | and with the right platform triples | 09:08:43 |
| emily | rather than building a "rustc" that is actually just the target platform std | 09:08:54 |
| Alyssa Ross | IIRC @Ericson2314:matrix.org didn't think it was possible some time in the past | 09:10:08 |
| emily | why not? it's exactly what fastCross does, right? | 09:11:25 |
| emily | like fastCross could just not link in the rustc in installation phase, and swizzle around the targets that it passes, and then we could wrap them together later | 09:12:09 |
| emily | I guess the problem is that the non-cross compiler would still want to build the target std | 09:12:28 |
| emily | -Zbuild-std at least helps… | 09:12:39 |
 K900 | One day we'll have cargo-std-aware | 09:13:08 |
| emily | patch Rust to accept -Zbuild-std on stable, do separate-Rust-crate-packaging, make std one of them 🙃 | 09:13:14 |
| K900 | One day | 09:13:15 |
| emily | it'll be awful with the current Rust packaging scheme. because we would build std for every single application | 09:13:38 |
| emily | oh, I guess not because the FOD is compressed, right? Toma: why do we compress the FOD again? | 12:08:43 |
| emily | anyway, maybe we could move the unpacking of the FOD into the actual Rust package build? | 12:08:54 |
| Alyssa Ross | We'd need to do fetchCargoVendor2 for that | 12:13:56 |
 Toma | It is compressed, because it is how they are downloaded, and it is also not uncompressed so that we don't have file system case sensitiveness bite us with different hashes | 12:13:59 |
| Alyssa Ross | (Which doesn't mean we shouldn't) | 12:14:06 |
| Alyssa Ross | ah right | 12:14:12 |
| emily | fair | 12:16:26 |
| Toma | In reply to @tomasajt:matrix.org
It is compressed, because it is how they are downloaded, and it is also not uncompressed so that we don't have file system case sensitiveness bite us with different hashes Also, just in general, the goal was to have the dumbest possible FOD logic so that under no circumstance will the hash break. | 12:16:29 |
| emily | I think moving it into a hook of the actual build would be good? | 12:16:35 |
| emily | that way nothing gets persisted | 12:16:47 |
| Toma | It would be better. Though we'd need some interesting workarounds...
An interesting option would be to have the non-FOD part jus be a directory with a symlink to the FOD and a marker file that the hook can detect. | 12:19:40 |
| Toma | * It would be better. Though we'd need some interesting workarounds...
An interesting option would be to have the non-FOD part just be a directory with a symlink to the FOD and a marker file that the hook can detect. | 12:19:59 |
| Toma | Ideally we'd get rid of the double layering, but I don't know how viable that is really at this point... (It's not backportable, there are no marker files in the FOD part, except maybe the way the directories were named) | 12:22:39 |
