Nixpkgs Stdenv | 228 Members | |
| 74 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 9 Mar 2025 | ||
| Redacted or Malformed Event | 20:00:57 | |
| (Wait wrong channel sorry) | 20:01:35 | |
| 10 Mar 2025 | ||
| Randy Eckenrode: would you happen to know if darwin uses an out-of-the-ordinary shell with respect to Nixpkgs builds? Put another way, do darwin systems use their host machine's bash, an old/vendored version of bash, or the same version linux machines would? I ask because I'm making setup hooks which use some bash-isms, and I see comments littered throughout Nixpkgs about hacking around old versions of bash for darwin. | 17:04:57 | |
| Should be standard nixpkgs bash | 17:07:15 | |
| Minus platform specific sheet | 17:07:25 | |
| * Minus platform specific shit | 17:07:26 | |
| (see above) | 17:07:28 | |
In reply to @connorbaker:matrix.org Darwin uses nixpkgs Bash (whether from the bootstrap tools or freshly built). How old are those comments? Darwin may have used the system when it had a native (impure) toolchain, but that was a decade ago. The only exception that comes to mind is a foopkg-config script from when | 17:08:52 | |
| Some of them are from about a decade ago haha | 17:09:19 | |
| Redacted or Malformed Event | 17:11:33 | |
| kill 'em | 19:04:48 | |
| it's just old cruft | 19:04:52 | |
| 12 Mar 2025 | ||
| 21:08:50 | ||
| 14 Mar 2025 | ||
| We've got a bunch of PR's and we should make progress on them. I'm thinking we can probably do:
| 17:44:42 | |
| I've made a board https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/projects/92/views/1 | 18:11:51 | |
| Had to rebase https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/365057 again. Let's get this reviewed and merged soon. Every time I rebase, it makes looking for previous reviews difficult. | 18:23:39 | |
| 17 Mar 2025 | ||
| This Thursday (2025-03-20) @ 9am - 10am PST will be the first meeting. I hope this will allow us to have a more coordinated effort towards development. Goals:
Link: https://jitsi.lassul.us/nixpkgs-stdenv | 02:40:12 | |
| I won't have time to do a full re-review before next weekend-ish but fwiw the last time I glanced at this there were review comments I left last time that hadn't been addressed | 04:07:29 | |
also like I said the easy way to land this without needing rebase/review of a huge monolithic PR is to split it up as read-only → convert existing users of useLLVM gradually → hook them up to bootstrap → make them writable and deprecate useLLVM | 04:08:22 | |
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgOh ok, idk what could be missing | 04:23:54 | |
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.orgOh, I didn't realize that's what you meant. | 04:24:06 | |
| I think https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/365057#discussion_r1927841995 wasn't addressed? but like I said I haven't had time to go over the whole thing again btw, there is overlap with https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/352629, so we'll need to decide what we want to do there | 04:29:00 | |
I think the has in cases of multiple possible variants will just cause issues. | 05:09:41 | |
| I think I did address that or mostly did. | 05:10:31 | |
| ah, I see the assert now. that might work. the premature warnings are still there though. but I'll try to take a closer look next weekend | 05:31:06 | |
| I'm not sure how to handle the warnings since I don't think there's much of a delay between this PR coming and 25.05. | 05:36:45 | |
| they shouldn't be deprecated/warned until we have replacements that are hooked up to bootstrap properly. it doesn't make sense to deprecate parameters before setting their replacements works properly | 05:53:01 | |
| Oh ok, I'll remove those tomorrow after work. I'm heading to bed. | 06:28:54 | |
| 18 Mar 2025 | ||
| I have removed those now | 05:20:24 | |
| 10:54:28 | ||