| 4 Apr 2025 |
 emily | I think they prefer a permanent non-shallow clone that gets fetched normally, or tarball downloads | 11:20:14 |
 Mic92 | Ok. but why is there CI not downloading tarballs? | 13:02:59 |
| emily | no idea :) but I guess CI probably runs a lot less than people hit package indexes | 13:06:03 |
| Mic92 | I think it also makes a big difference if you just do this for nixpkgs instead of many small repos | 13:06:34 |
| Mic92 | Which I think is what CocoaPods is doing | 13:07:11 |
 Alyssa Ross | CocoaPods at the time was one big repo | 13:08:06 |
| Alyssa Ross | I'd imagine it's a lot more expensive with one big repo than with many small ones | 13:08:30 |
| Alyssa Ross | https://blog.cocoapods.org/Master-Spec-Repo-Rate-Limiting-Post-Mortem/ | 13:08:59 |
| Mic92 | Also the question is, if those issues still persist. This was 2016. They have completely revamped their internal git implementation and make it distributed. | 13:15:03 |
| Mic92 | Because I don't see any performance degradation when fetching stuff this way. | 13:16:05 |
| Mic92 | If not, I have even more a reason to fetch my git repository from elsewhere. | 13:17:24 |
| Mic92 | Just checked that cocoapods has 20 times the files of nixpkgs | 13:20:07 |
| emily | feel like hydra distributing nixexprs is still what makes the most sense after all this time :) | 14:05:05 |
| Mic92 | Maybe for some stuff but for my dotfiles, where I am hacking on my nixpkgs fork, the shallow clone is many times faster if I do single commits for bug fixes. | 14:06:19 |
| Mic92 | It should be even cheaper for github to compute this delta over serving me the whole nixpkgs all over again. | 14:07:32 |
 tea | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
https://blog.cocoapods.org/Master-Spec-Repo-Rate-Limiting-Post-Mortem/ If I understand it correctly, the problem here was that cocoa initially did a shallow clone but then upgraded that to a full clone, which is expensive
https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/4989#issuecomment-193772935
| 15:48:46 |
| 5 Apr 2025 |
|  Divya joined the room. | 08:13:38 |
| Divya | : Hello! I wanted to know how Nix packages GHC, does it bootstrap it entirely? How do you guys change the process when GHC changes build systems from 9.4 to 9.6 (from make to hadrian)? | 08:13:52 |
| Divya | I'm from Guix's Haskell team, trying to learn how you guys do it so that we can improve our Haskell situation :) | 08:14:37 |
 K900 | That's more of a #Nixpkgs / NixOS contributions question | 08:14:48 |
| K900 | Or maybe the Haskell room | 08:14:51 |
| K900 | (I think we have a Haskell room?) | 08:15:00 |
| K900 | Also @maralorn or @sterni probably know | 08:15:11 |
| Divya | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
That's more of a #Nixpkgs / NixOS contributions question Okay, apologies! | 08:16:14 |
| emily | it's bootstrapped from bindist, but yeah see #haskell:nixos.org | 08:16:23 |
| emily | I think full source bootstrap of GHC is still largely theoretical | 08:16:35 |
|  zexu joined the room. | 13:06:41 |
|  @tinybronca:sibnsk.net left the room. | 15:30:20 |
| 6 Apr 2025 |
 Las | I’m doing nix derivation show, then changing it a bit, then nix derivation add, but when I nix build my changed drv, it just outputs the drv as the output instead of building it? Bug somewhere? I assume the issue is my changes aren’t valid but I don’t get any errors and the documentation isn’t quite clear on it. | 11:14:26 |
| Las | I assume it’s my placeholder paths? | 11:14:48 |
