Nixpkgs Stdenv | 224 Members | |
| 72 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Apr 2025 | ||
| * If we don't fix it at all, people would not be able to use new bootstrap tarballs for exotic architectures following our guide, which can be considered as a regression caused by gcc14 update | 16:54:07 | |
-next is pretty much guaranteed to rebuild the world | 17:00:04 | |
it's likely there are already stdenv rebuilds in staging | 17:00:17 | |
| certainly I'm going to add one for Darwin ASAP | 17:00:24 | |
| I remember doing a tall at Planet Nix about the different channels but I forget what they each do lol. | 17:01:47 | |
| * I remember doing a talk at Planet Nix about the different channels but I forget what they each do lol. | 17:01:56 | |
In reply to @rosscomputerguy:matrix.orgI fixed the graph at some point so I can't forget it | 17:09:22 | |
That would break Wine and DXVK. What is the replacement for things that need to build Windows DLLs? Wine’s use of MinGW is kind of bad (because it mixes cross- and native tools in an ugly way), but DXVK builds things as cross-to-Windows then symlinks those from the unversioned dxvk derivation). | 17:57:39 | |
| I intend to package DXMT, which uses LLVM plus deps. I just haven’t had time (and it needs Wine patches, which sucks). | 17:58:51 | |
| * I intend to package DXMT, which uses LLVM plus deps. I just haven’t had time (and it needs Wine patches, which kind of sucks). | 17:59:03 | |
| I'm not sure what the solution is but we're not moving everything over until after the release this PR is merged in lol | 17:59:36 | |
| So we do have time to come up with a solution | 17:59:46 | |
| DXMT sounds like a good solution | 18:00:06 | |
| I’m not sure how to structure DXMT. It’s a mix of native and Windows stuff. Ideally, cross from aarch64-darwin should build x86_64-darwin and x86_64-windows stuff. | 18:03:38 | |
| does it actually depend on Nixpkgs-packaged Windows stuff at runtime? | 18:04:30 | |
| I also would like to rewrite the Wine derivation to be less ugly and support aarch64. I saw something on r/asahilinux about using FEX with Wine itself, so you could end up with a Wine that supports x86, x86_64, and arm64ec. | 18:04:33 | |
| Yes. One of the things it builds a DLL that exposes Metal to the Windows side. | 18:06:23 | |
| It’s like DXVK but for Metal. | 18:06:37 | |
| * Yes. One of the things it builds is a DLL that exposes Metal to the Windows side. | 18:06:52 | |
| (DXVK can rely on Wine’s Vulkan implementation, but there’s nothing equivalent out of the box for Metal.) | 18:09:36 | |
| Hi! Stdenv noob here. Re: #295038, I have been working on understanding the next-gen GCC split-up efforts (John Ericson Philip Taron (UTC-8) ). I wanted to bounce some issues around to see if anyone may have any insight/perspective. I've brought in changes from master (from a few weeks ago) into my working branch here. Per John Ericson's guidance, my focus is on getting cross-compilation functional. For testing, I am using the following build command from an x86 machine: For additional background, the main gccNg top-level package is located here. The surface-level issue that I am currently finding is that building gccNgPackages.libssp fails with the following error:
I have made the assumption that the error is arch-related. Testing this assumption, I found the Does anyone have any thoughts? | 18:47:16 | |
| * Hi! Stdenv noob here. Re: #295038, I have been working on understanding the next-gen GCC split-up efforts (John Ericson Philip Taron (UTC-8) ). I wanted to bounce some issues around to see if anyone may have any insight/perspective. I've brought in changes from master (from a few weeks ago) into my working branch here. Per John Ericson's guidance, my focus is on getting cross-compilation functional. For testing, I am using the following build command from an x86 machine: For additional background, the main gccNg top-level package is located here. The surface-level issue that I am currently finding is that building gccNgPackages.libssp fails with the following error:
I have made the assumption that the error is arch-related. Testing this assumption, I found the Does anyone have any thoughts? | 18:49:37 | |
| * Hi! Stdenv noob here. Re: #295038, I have been working on understanding the next-gen GCC split-up efforts (John Ericson Philip Taron (UTC-8) ). I wanted to bounce some issues around to see if anyone may have any insight/perspective. I've brought in changes from master (from a few weeks ago) into my working branch here. Per John Ericson's guidance, my focus is on getting cross-compilation functional. For testing, I am using the following build command from an x86 machine: For additional background, the main gccNg top-level package is located here. The surface-level issue that I am currently finding is that building gccNgPackages.libssp fails with the following error:
I have made one assumption that the error is possibly arch-related. Testing this assumption, I found the Does anyone have any thoughts? | 19:19:51 | |
| @cldrpr lemme give it a try on my aarch64 hardware to see if cross is borked, though that doesn't look like cross for what you're doing. That looks like emulated compiling. | 19:52:55 | |
In reply to @reckenrode:matrix.orgI think it's doable but we'll have to explore our options when we're closer to that stage | 19:53:19 | |
I would expect libssp not to be needed on aarch64. MOst targets should provide __stack_chk_fail and friends from libc. | 19:54:59 | |
| @aleksana:mozilla.org So the coreutils PR got merged, that'll cause a rebuild of stdenv anyway. I think that other stdenv PR should be good. | 19:55:21 | |
In reply to @trofi:matrix.orgYes, I'll check things out on my system. Should be easy for me to try things out. | 19:55:47 | |
| I wonder if the GCC refactoring could fix https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/399656#issuecomment-2814602431 lol | 19:58:58 | |
my bet is on the mix of libgcc.a from non-matching compiler versions. | 20:03:47 | |