| 13 Jan 2025 |
 Toma | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
fwiw finalAttrs.finalPackage.doCheck ≠ finalAttrs.doCheck well, it is the same now, since finalAttrs = finalPackage
The fix point IS the package | 01:30:49 |
 emily | how do you handle doCheck then? | 01:31:02 |
| Toma | It just "extends" the user given value.
(I used userValue.doCheck or ...canExecute..., but I could have done userValue.doCheck && ...canExecute...)
Just like you would extend nativeBuildInputs with by appending some hooks in the case of buildRustPackage
So even though the user wrote some value, the final value might have changed slightly.
There is currently a way to access all other layers (e.g. before doCheck was extended), but this introduces correctness problems. | 01:35:18 |
| Toma | * It just "extends" the user given value.
(I used userValue.doCheck or ...canExecute..., but I could have done userValue.doCheck && ...canExecute...)
Just like you would extend nativeBuildInputs by appending some hooks in the case of buildRustPackage or buildNpmPackage
So even though the user wrote some value, the final value might have changed slightly.
There is currently a way to access all other layers (e.g. before doCheck was extended), but this introduces correctness problems. | 01:36:06 |
| Toma | But do take a look at the implementation.
Also the lowest layer of transformation relies on the entirely undocumented builtins.derivationStrict | 01:37:55 |
| emily | right | 02:29:33 |
| emily | I'll try and take a look at some point (quite busy) | 02:29:39 |
| 14 Jan 2025 |
 ネコ | can someone look at #358042? it's a trivial fix and it's been preventing me from building any flakes for several months. | 17:08:45 |
| 15 Jan 2025 |
|  SomeoneSerge (UTC+3) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge (utc+3) to SomeoneSerge. | 19:02:58 |
| 16 Jan 2025 |
|  FliegendeWurst joined the room. | 09:37:40 |
| 17 Jan 2025 |
|  chintuchamar joined the room. | 04:40:34 |
| 20 Jan 2025 |
 Tristan Ross | I'm hoping to get https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/365057 approved so I can start working on LLVM bootstrapping without GCC. | 18:25:39 |
| emily | I still think that it's a major footgun and not an improvement over the status quo to have a toolchain variable that is only meant to set a bunch of defaults but that is nonetheless semantically significant and conditioned on in other code | 18:28:51 |
| emily | it might not be easy to figure out which factors the existing checks care about but it's the only way the change makes sense | 18:29:16 |
| emily | I think the best approach is just to omit toolchain entirely and simply split it up into its constituent factors | 18:30:08 |
| emily | it's possible some of the checks will end up checking the wrong thing but it's better than being able to do a check that defeats the point of splitting it up | 18:30:22 |
| Tristan Ross | Then we need a way to detect whether the toolchain is LLVM or not so the usingLLVM conditions can be translated. | 18:31:10 |
| Tristan Ross | * Then we need a way to detect whether the toolchain is LLVM or not so the useLLVM conditions can be translated. | 18:31:20 |
| emily | there's no such thing as "the toolchain is LLVM" | 18:31:23 |
| emily | that's what I keep trying to explain | 18:31:27 |
| emily | LLVM is a bunch of things and you can pick and choose which parts you use (compatibility permitting) | 18:31:36 |
| emily | hence Darwin using Clang, libc++, libc++abi, but ld64 | 18:32:15 |
| Tristan Ross | So then there's no such thing as a GNU toolchain? | 18:32:23 |
| Tristan Ross | I don't really see a simple way of defining what all the toolchain related things equates to. The toolchain attribute makes that possible. | 18:33:04 |
| emily | only as shorthand for "uses GCC, libstdc++, GNU binutils, etc.". I think that at one point FreeBSD was using libcxxrt but GCC? so is that "a GNU chain" | 18:33:14 |
| emily | * only as shorthand for "uses GCC, libstdc++, GNU binutils, etc.". I think that at one point FreeBSD was using libcxxrt but GCC? so is that "a GNU toolchain" | 18:33:15 |
| emily | (I could be wrong about the timing there, but there's lots of examples like this) | 18:33:15 |
| emily | if we want to keep having "an X toolchain" as a monolithic concept then we shouldn't add additional variables that can't vary freely because we assume all the things are grouped together | 18:33:33 |
| emily | if we want to split it up (which I think is a good idea and we should do it), then we shouldn't leave a vestigial notion around that will break actually trying to benefit from the split-up variables | 18:34:00 |
| Tristan Ross | That's kinda why I added a way to check if things are the default values. Then it's easier to see if the toolchain is the standard setup. | 18:34:26 |
