| 25 Jan 2023 |
 baloo | I don't think we have the relationships between objects | 20:04:06 |
| baloo | yeah, I don't know haskell well enough to know if this is a GHC or a cabal issue. | 20:04:42 |
| baloo | anyway, was just dumping thoughts here ;) I haven't looked at the issue yet | 20:05:08 |
| baloo | but considering how slow haskell is to compile, I think it's worth not going with the -j 1 option | 20:05:52 |
 atemu12 | baloo: For regular builds, no. For the subset in the ISO (and only there), j1 could be an option. | 20:24:47 |
| baloo | Right | 20:26:32 |
| baloo | (Still wouldn’t mind seeing that fixed upstream, but I’m very slow at writing Haskell) | 20:27:25 |
| baloo | someone wants to try a patch? :D | 22:39:35 |
| baloo | https://gist.github.com/baloo/ae0c10f2537232790876792faa4bc506 | 22:39:50 |
| baloo | nevermind, there was a lot of rewrites? | 22:49:53 |
| 28 Jan 2023 |
|  tgerbet joined the room. | 16:38:00 |
|  sackboyending joined the room. | 21:20:40 |
| 30 Jan 2023 |
|  Zxmon joined the room. | 11:06:18 |
| 1 Feb 2023 |
|  @plutoisnotblue:matrix.org removed their display name plutoisnotblue. | 23:36:19 |
| @plutoisnotblue:matrix.org left the room. | 23:36:33 |
| 5 Feb 2023 |
|  @meidam:matrix.org joined the room. | 00:27:01 |
| 9 Feb 2023 |
|  sheijk joined the room. | 20:58:06 |
| 10 Feb 2023 |
 Winter (she/her) | what do we do to ensue that things like library linking order are reproducible? | 17:05:45 |
| baloo | not much, that should be the responsability of the builder (make, cmake, ninja, ...) not much nix itself can do. | 17:35:35 |
| Winter (she/her) | In reply to @baloo_:matrix.org
not much, that should be the responsability of the builder (make, cmake, ninja, ...) not much nix itself can do. well i meant if we do something like passing certain flags like cc-wrapper but yeah that makes sense | 17:42:45 |
| Winter (she/her) | assuming by "nix itself" you meant Nixpkgs | 17:43:11 |
| baloo | I mean that there are valid reasons why a builder would want libraries to be passed in a give order | 19:18:47 |
| baloo | * I mean that there are valid reasons why a builder would want libraries to be passed in a given order | 19:18:51 |
| baloo | and that it would not be something we can do on the cc-wrapper to reorder those, because we're missing context / intention. I could be just random order, but it could be intentional and we couldn't tell the difference | 19:20:00 |
| atemu12 | baloo: What reasons could there be for a builder to explicitly specify order? How wide-spread is that practice? | 19:21:35 |
| baloo | cc -o foo -l bar bar.o -l baz baz.o bar and baz could both define qux and bar.o would refer to qux in libbar where baz.o would refer to qux
okay, it's a bit extreme ... buttttt it's valid | 19:22:31 |
| baloo | * cc -o foo -l bar bar.o -l baz baz.o bar and baz could both define qux and bar.o would refer to qux in libbar where baz.o would refer to qux in libbaz
okay, it's a bit extreme ... buttttt it's valid | 19:22:51 |
| baloo | how widespread is that? no idea. but I'm pretty sure I don't want to be the one figuring out crazy linker errors :D | 19:24:12 |
| atemu12 | baloo: I think it'd at least be interesting to have as an optional setting, if not the default with opt-out | 19:26:34 |
|  @maelstroem:nope.chat joined the room. | 20:49:41 |
