| 12 Sep 2023 |
 @atalii:matrix.org | In reply to @msanft:matrix.org
Hey, I'm currently trying to build a static binary of a Go module which uses CGO. However, the local header file I'm trying to include in my main.go is not being picked up. I struggle to find the definition of buildGoModule to see what happens exactly. In my understanding, the header file should be included since src = ./.
i'm not too experienced with CGO/nix/etc, but i'll take a stab in the dark - if ./. is a git repository, nix will ignore any file that isn't indexed; you can git add -N $your_header_file if that is the issue | 01:14:01 |
 Moritz Sanft | Hey oren :) Thanks for your reply! Actually, I think I inevitably need a static binary. I don't know if it will even work out in the end, but I'm trying to compile a CGo-using Go app for an embedded RISCV device which requires static binaries from my x86 builder device. Quite unusual I guess :D | 05:31:01 |
| Moritz Sanft | God, yes. I didn't notice I had not checked in this file. Thank you so much! | 05:32:20 |
|  chrispickard removed their display name chrispickard. | 17:38:32 |
| 13 Sep 2023 |
|  jsla joined the room. | 07:35:55 |
| 15 Sep 2023 |
|  Michal Fikejs joined the room. | 00:07:20 |
 farcaller | what's the best way to run go test on a go module that has a bunch of cgo deps pulled from flakes? I guess, i"m mostly curious how to run checks only via buildGoModule or something, given the module doesn't have any binary outputs. | 19:38:18 |
| 16 Sep 2023 |
|  Paul Meyer (katexochen) changed their display name from katexochen to Paul Meyer (katexochen). | 08:20:12 |
| 21 Sep 2023 |
 kidsan | Are we able to buildGoModule using go version 1.21 currently? | 11:45:12 |
 @qbit:tapenet.org | Yes | 12:09:06 |
| kidsan | Yeah I worked out the required override just now, thanks! | 12:09:46 |
|  dedmunwalk joined the room. | 23:06:59 |
| 24 Sep 2023 |
|  mib 🥐 joined the room. | 12:21:01 |
| 25 Sep 2023 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | Why is buildGoModule using vendoring instead of relying on go.mod/go.sum? | 05:06:06 |
 Artturin | In reply to @katexochen:matrix.org
Why is buildGoModule using vendoring instead of relying on go.mod/go.sum? vendoring would be copying those files to the nixpkgs repo | 05:12:26 |
| Artturin | and they're not | 05:13:14 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | The builder has a field vendorHash, that's what I'm talking about. As far as I understand, it creates a intermediate derivation with the vendored dependencies. | 05:14:32 |
| Artturin | I consider vendoring copying files to the repo | 05:15:10 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | * The builder has a field vendorHash, that's what I'm talking about. As far as I understand, it creates an intermediate derivation with the vendored dependencies. | 05:15:11 |
| Artturin | the vendorHash thingy is just for a fod | 05:15:25 |
| Artturin | so the deps can be fetched | 05:15:29 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | fod? | 05:18:44 |
| Artturin | fixed output derivation | 05:18:52 |
| Artturin | only those and impure derivations have access to network | 05:19:00 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | Sure, makes sense to separate those derivations. But couldn't it use the go.sum file instead of its own hash? How would I validate the vendorHash actually is the hash of the dependencies in the go.sum file? | 05:22:52 |
| Artturin | In reply to @katexochen:matrix.org
Sure, makes sense to separate those derivations. But couldn't it use the go.sum file instead of its own hash? How would I validate the vendorHash actually is the hash of the dependencies in the go.sum file? Using a file from inside the derivation would be ifd | 05:26:48 |
| Artturin | Import from derivation | 05:26:55 |
| Artturin | Which isn't allowed in nixpkgs | 05:27:14 |
| Artturin | Files would have to be downloaded during evaluation | 05:27:25 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | Got it, thanks for explaining. So dynamic derivations could potentially fix this in nixpkgs? | 05:29:43 |
