| 22 May 2021 |
 joe (he/him) | cdepillabout: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/123990 and https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/123991
Thanks for the guidance
| 08:31:39 |
 maralorn | In reply to @cdepillabout:matrix.org
Okay, if maralorn doesn't oppose this, I'll reach out to @rnhmjoj and see if he'd be willing to volunteer. Static building seems great. Maintainers seem great. Go for all of it! | 10:06:30 |
|  jul1u5 joined the room. | 11:14:20 |
|  evils joined the room. | 11:23:53 |
| evils left the room. | 11:44:35 |
 sterni (he/him) | John Ericson: on a different note, we probably should also stop pinning it to musl since glibc.static has been around for quite some time | 12:31:42 |
|  andi- removed their profile picture. | 13:26:17 |
|  barryfm joined the room. | 13:28:41 |
| andi- set a profile picture. | 13:34:06 |
|  dualinverter joined the room. | 16:11:32 |
|  pwmosquito joined the room. | 16:22:04 |
 John Ericson | sterni: hmm ok | 17:06:26 |
| John Ericson | i just assumed there was some issue with glibc static | 17:06:37 |
| John Ericson | but would be cool if there wasn't | 17:06:43 |
| sterni (he/him) | from reading the code I got the impression that at the time there was no glibc.static and it wasn't changed since then, but I could be wrong | 17:31:02 |
| sterni (he/him) | pennae: with -j1 tests no longer fail, so seems to be indeed a race condition | 18:41:19 |
 pennae | good to know :< | 18:46:12 |
| sterni (he/him) | upstream knows™ now | 18:48:24 |
| pennae | heh, SEP :D | 18:48:36 |
| sterni (he/him) | also I really have to add a proper way to pass flags to the test invocation | 18:48:37 |
| sterni (he/him) | the testTarget trick I have been doing is something to be ashamed of | 18:49:01 |
| * pennae check what that could be | 18:50:36 |
| pennae | .. eh, could be worse | 18:51:38 |
| sterni (he/him) | it's just a bit annoying ideally we wann just reuse mkDerivation's checkFlags, but we already have it called testTarget | 18:52:36 |
| maralorn | sterni: cdepillabout: I am wondering how we should go about problems were people fix stuff upstream and then we have to decide if we workaround it or bump our hackage snapshot to fix our build error. I wish there was a solution to somehow bump only this one package … | 18:55:42 |
| sterni (he/him) | this is the moment where I go I told you so right? :p | 18:56:07 |
| sterni (he/him) | it's a bit unfortunate, but I think we may also get away with bumping the hackage pin as well | 18:56:26 |
| sterni (he/him) | other than that we can just use overrideSrc in this case I'm pretty sure | 18:56:53 |
| sterni (he/him) | I checked earlier doing a bump of hackage only has a sizeable diff, but it's hard to say if it'd break anything ofc | 18:57:24 |
| maralorn | The question is if we could (and want) introduce a distinction between the hackage-snapshot used for generation and the hackage-snapshot used for taking prefered-versions. | 18:59:02 |
