| 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 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | But isn't go vendor using the go.mod file from inside the derivation anyway to download the dependencies? | 05:32:56 |
| Paul Meyer (katexochen) | I mean how else would it know what to download. | 05:33:40 |
| Artturin | In reply to @katexochen:matrix.org
But isn't go vendor using the go.mod file from inside the derivation anyway to download the dependencies? You can check the builders nix file and see what it runa | 05:34:11 |
| Artturin | * In reply to @katexochen:matrix.org
But isn't go vendor using the go.mod file from inside the derivation anyway to download the dependencies?
You can check the builders nix file and see what it runs | 05:34:17 |
| Artturin | In reply to @katexochen:matrix.org
Got it, thanks for explaining. So dynamic derivations could potentially fix this in nixpkgs? The rfc summary says so | 05:34:54 |
