| 30 Jul 2022 |
 K900 | Or rather it will have the wrong cross binutils | 11:35:47 |
| K900 | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
K900: The wrapper is made in the postInstall of the rust derivation :P But I see your point Well yeah we'd have to split it out | 11:35:54 |
 @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Linux Hackerman: The right strip command is ${binutils.targetPrefix}strip | 11:35:55 |
| K900 | Actually wait | 11:36:11 |
| K900 | Why not just take it as a command line arg | 11:36:20 |
 @linus:schreibt.jetzt | ElvishJerricco: only at build time though? | 11:36:23 |
| K900 | And then wherever it's invoked we just make-initrd-ng --strip=${binutils.targetPrefix}strip | 11:36:40 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | K900: Minimal system should have a cross make-initrd-ng, which should have a cross-built binutils, not a cross binutils | 11:36:46 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Yea, binutils is in a minimal system lol only since the introduction of the shutdown ramfs | 11:37:07 |
| K900 | Is it time to also add clap | 11:37:09 |
| K900 | Since we're doing deps | 11:37:12 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | In reply to @linus:schreibt.jetzt
lol only since the introduction of the shutdown ramfs oh really? | 11:37:16 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | oof | 11:37:20 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | at least that's the only path through which nix-build '<nixpkgs/nixos>' --arg configuration '{ boot.isContainer = true; }' -A config.system.build.toplevel depends on a binutils on my nixpkgs version | 11:37:43 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | (and containers probably shouldn't have a shutdown ramfs anyway?) | 11:37:55 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | In reply to @linus:schreibt.jetzt
at least that's the only path through which nix-build '<nixpkgs/nixos>' --arg configuration '{ boot.isContainer = true; }' -A config.system.build.toplevel depends on a binutils on my nixpkgs version likewise for { boot.loader.grub.enable = false; fileSystems."/".device = "dummy"; } | 11:39:51 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | hm. what'd'ya'know. That's unfortunate | 11:40:51 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | oof and that's like 32MiB | 11:41:01 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | K900: Ok, so yea, a command line argument for strip would be good. If it's not provided, do not strip | 11:41:12 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | that way the minimal closure doesn't need it? | 11:41:21 |
| K900 | If it's not provided, just bail? | 11:41:28 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | ugh but users still need it to build their initrds | 11:41:36 |
| K900 | Also, why is make-initrd-ng even in the minimal closure | 11:41:44 |
| K900 | I feel like that's the better question | 11:41:49 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | a shutdown ramfs isn't actually saved, right? It only ever lives in RAM? So who cares if the binaries there are a bit bigger? | 11:42:11 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | K900: Well, two things. For one, you're going to have it on your system anyway, because you'll be building your initrds. Second, we have the shutdown ramfs now | 11:42:13 |
| K900 | The shutdown ramfs shouldn't be in the minimal closure either though | 11:42:34 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | it's enabled by default now | 11:42:42 |
| K900 | Maybe we should disable it for isContainer = true at least | 11:42:55 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | yea probably | 11:43:01 |
