| 10 Aug 2023 |
 dotlambda | That could be remediated by using different attributes in all-packages.nix for different versions | 17:18:23 |
 Lily Foster | It could maybe. I've seen it change across minor versions for, e.g., tomlq though, so unless the project specifically either allows specifying a reproducible format or promises output reproducibility I've become distrustful of it :) | 17:20:14 |
| Lily Foster | I'd rather we just made our own pnpm-lockfile-equivalent because then we would be in control of the output reproducibility | 17:20:38 |
| Lily Foster | (And not just because npm still does Bad Stuff™️ with v1 lockfiles sometimes) | 17:21:04 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @countoren:matrix.org
Lily Foster: Thank you for your help Okay apparently it was RUST_LOG not RUSTLOG, but don't worry about grabbing the log. I fiddled with it locally and found the problem. Can you try updating your flake input from that branch, invalidate the fetcher hash, and try again? | 17:49:34 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @countoren:matrix.org
Lily Foster: Thank you for your help * Okay apparently it was RUST_LOG not RUSTLOG, but don't worry about grabbing the log anymore. I fiddled with it locally and found the problem. Can you try updating your flake input from that branch, invalidate the fetcher hash, and try again? | 17:49:44 |
| Lily Foster | * oren: Okay apparently it was
RUST_LOG not RUSTLOG, but don't worry about grabbing the log anymore. I fiddled with it locally and found the problem. Can you try updating your flake input from that branch, invalidate the fetcher hash, and try again? | 18:15:24 |
 countoren | sure | 18:43:16 |
| dotlambda | In reply to @lily:lily.flowers
I'd rather we just made our own pnpm-lockfile-equivalent because then we would be in control of the output reproducibility We can fork the project cause it looks kinda dead anyway. | 18:44:59 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @robert:funklause.de
We can fork the project cause it looks kinda dead anyway. I haven't looked into the code enough, but if it's not cancer, sure if you want go ahead | 18:45:56 |
| countoren | In reply to @lily:lily.flowers
oren: Okay apparently it was
RUST_LOG not RUSTLOG, but don't worry about grabbing the log anymore. I fiddled with it locally and found the problem. Can you try updating your flake input from that branch, invalidate the fetcher hash, and try again? same branch right? | 18:46:14 |
| Lily Foster | In reply to @countoren:matrix.org
same branch right? Yep! | 18:47:25 |
| countoren | I think we downloaded them, I am getting missing build script tho | 18:49:49 |
| Lily Foster | Does the package have a build script in package.json? | 18:50:17 |
| countoren | the package.json I have here is just deps | 18:50:18 |
| countoren | no | 18:50:22 |
| Lily Foster | Or is it possibly called something else? | 18:50:28 |
| countoren | was using "outside" npx command | 18:50:32 |
| countoren | npx ng build | 18:50:41 |
| countoren | does buildNpm give you ability to define it in nix? | 18:51:06 |
| Lily Foster | Ah, if it doesn't need to be built then you can just do dontNpmBuild. But if you're needing to run a command to build, it might not be a bad idea to add it to the package.json | 18:51:16 |
| Lily Foster | * Ah, if it doesn't need to be built then you can just do
`dontNpmBuild = true`. But if you're needing to run a command to build, it might not be a bad idea to add it to the package.json | 18:51:28 |
| countoren | I think I will just add it | 18:51:41 |
| Lily Foster | * Ah, if it doesn't need to be built then you can just do `dontNpmBuild = true`. But if you're needing to run a command to build, it might not be a bad idea to add it to the package.json | 18:51:43 |
| countoren | should it be with npx? | 18:51:46 |
| Lily Foster | It should probably be in devDependencies and then run without npx | 18:52:16 |
| countoren | ng is in dev | 18:52:47 |
| Lily Foster | Then yeah no npx needed | 18:52:59 |
| Lily Foster | Just "scripts": { "build": "ng build" } in package.json I guess | 18:53:31 |
| countoren | yes, that is basically what I did it has some more flaf. | 18:54:26 |
