!UNVBThoJtlIiVwiDjU:nixos.org

Staging

319 Members
Staging merges | Find currently open staging-next PRs: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+sort%3Aupdated-desc+head%3Astaging-next+head%3Astaging-next-21.05+is%3Aopen109 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
20 Sep 2025
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily does GCC support -cxx-isystem? 18:59:19
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilywe could kill off that stuff in our wrappers if just passed the right flags, for Clang at least…18:59:29
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilylooks like no. tragic18:59:46
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyOTOH it's not clear why we want to hide C++ headers from plain C compiles.19:00:08
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilygiven that they're visible on normal systems19:00:12
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyanyway… just dropping the useless dep from Mesa sounds good19:00:39
@ghpzin:envs.netghpzin It has duplicates in BINDGEN_EXTRA_CLANG_ARGS on both gcc14 and gcc15, why it fails only on gcc15 not sure (seemingly only hashes/versions change).
https://gist.github.com/ghpzin/e9bd2497c7cebba3d13e409f1f916c6b
19:00:45
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilybut I don't love the hook and wrapper conflicting in general19:00:46
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyand I hate wrappers :)19:00:49
@k900:0upti.meK900 It did at one point 19:01:46
@k900:0upti.meK900 Feel free to remove 19:01:49
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily (would anyone object to fixing this and finally making clang -x c++ etc. work) 19:04:49
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily(I guess the problem is that we do the linking manually…)19:05:10
@lt1379:matrix.orgLun anyone looking at lvm2 being broken due to a disallowed ref to bashInteractive? 19:26:57
@lt1379:matrix.orgLun * anyone looking at lvm2 being broken due to a disallowed ref to bash? 19:27:26
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilythese disallowed requisites seem to have been a mistake19:49:59
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilywe should probably just keep it in a. bashless NixOS test or at least make it direct references rather than transitive requisites so that changes don't break stuff further down the tree at random19:50:43
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all) Is the preferred cmake 4 fix a patch or adding "-DCMAKE_POLICY_VERSION_MINIMUM=3.10" to cmakeFlags ? 21:01:36
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)personally i'd vote patch, because patches will start failing to apply and then are easier to spot when they should be removed, but i see emily did the cmake flag in mariadb so i wondered21:02:20
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyupstream patch21:11:57
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily then substituteInPlace 21:11:59
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily then -D 21:12:01
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyI did it for MariaDB because it's in a nested submodule with multiple relveant files etc. that they didn't backport commits for21:12:14
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyand only for old versions21:12:18
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily almost everywhere I did fetchpatch or substituteInPlace 21:12:25
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)Some don't specify a cmake version policy at all...21:15:04
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)then you can't substitute21:15:10
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)but fair enough21:15:20
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)i got cmake 4 fails on the way to libreoffice from my xml branch, so i was wondering21:16:10
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)the fallout is definitely there, but i imagined it'd be worse21:17:16

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6