| 16 Oct 2021 |
 baloo | before running tests, we just install everything like we should, then we run the tests and if they run successfuly, touch the test output | 22:48:31 |
| baloo | derivation would fail if not every output is created | 22:48:46 |
| baloo | output derivation does not get extraneous references. | 22:49:52 |
| baloo | I don't know how dumb that is | 22:49:59 |
| baloo | https://github.com/baloo/nixpkgs/tree/baloo/stdenv%2Flate-checks | 23:53:27 |
| baloo | (untested) | 23:53:31 |
| 17 Oct 2021 |
| baloo | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/141933 | 00:42:53 |
| baloo | we don't even need the tests output | 01:08:24 |
 @trofi:matrix.org | I don't know the invariants of the check phases. Are they forbidden to affect the final result? I can imagine a situation when result of test run would be useful to install. I assume it's not forbidden by nixpkgs's policy to create installable files in check phases (if such policy exists). I personally would not mind test bytecode to be installed if it were deterministic and it's what python ecosystem does. | 09:47:03 |
| baloo | that seems weird to me to rely on check phase to produce outputs, but I don't know | 20:07:42 |
| baloo | the suggestion to run that through an RFC first would make sense | 20:08:03 |
| baloo | but I have NO experience writing those | 20:08:12 |
 Alyssa Ross | RFCs are very slow. | 20:08:59 |
| baloo | anyhow that kind of change is deep, so I guess that's expected :x | 20:11:37 |
| 20 Oct 2021 |
|  phaer joined the room. | 21:01:07 |
| 21 Oct 2021 |
|  legendofmiracles joined the room. | 01:20:02 |
| 23 Oct 2021 |
 Artturin | has anyone tried getting rid of the dates in docbook2man?
─ gitweb.conf.5
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
'\" t
.\" Title: gitweb.conf
.\" Author: [FIXME: author] [see http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/author]
.\" Generator: DocBook XSL Stylesheets vsnapshot <http://docbook.sf.net/>
-.\" Date: 10/12/2021
+.\" Date: 08/16/2021
.\" Manual: Git Manual
-.\" Source: Git 2.33.1
+.\" Source: Git 2.33.0
.\" Language: English
.\"
-.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "10/12/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.1" "Git Manual"
+.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "08/16/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.0" "Git Manual"
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" * Define some portability stuff
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.\" http://bugs.debian.org/507673
.\" http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2009-02/msg00013.html
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 03:29:53 |
| Artturin | * has anyone tried getting rid of the dates in docbook2man?
─ gitweb.conf.5
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
'\" t
.\" Title: gitweb.conf
.\" Author: [FIXME: author] [see http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/author]
.\" Generator: DocBook XSL Stylesheets vsnapshot <http://docbook.sf.net/>
-.\" Date: 10/12/2021
+.\" Date: 08/16/2021
.\" Manual: Git Manual
-.\" Source: Git 2.33.1
+.\" Source: Git 2.33.0
.\" Language: English
.\"
-.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "10/12/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.1" "Git Manual"
+.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "08/16/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.0" "Git Manual"
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" * Define some portability stuff
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.\" http://bugs.debian.org/507673
.\" http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2009-02/msg00013.html
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 03:30:07 |
| baloo | not sure but, if that date comes from the release or the last time the source file has been touched it's fine | 03:38:27 |
| baloo | (it looks like you're checking differences between 2.33.0 and 2.33.1 | 03:38:48 |
| baloo | ) | 03:38:49 |
| baloo | git 2.33.1 is from 10/12/2021 and git 2.33.0 is from 08/16/2021 afaict | 03:40:46 |
| baloo | so this makes it reproducible, and we don't need to care about the date of it | 03:41:05 |
| baloo | otherwise, I would dig up the source of the date and either patch it out or just wrap that in a libfaketime | 03:41:36 |
|  r-burns joined the room. | 20:27:48 |
| r-burns | In reply to @baloo_:matrix.org
that seems weird to me to rely on check phase to produce outputs, but I don't know on CI it can be useful to have the check phase publish a ctest or junit xml | 22:18:45 |
| r-burns | nvm I think I misread your comment. I dont see any issues with requiring it to produce an output | 22:21:40 |
| 24 Oct 2021 |
| baloo | What I was suggesting is to run the installPhase before checkPhase | 15:59:16 |
| baloo | does not mean you can't put stuff in the postCheck hook in the $out or get an extraneous $test output or something | 15:59:56 |
| Artturin | can diffoscope follow symlinks? | 16:00:22 |
