| 27 Mar 2025 |
 John Ericson | backport to avoid conflicts on other backports? not sure | 05:50:27 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | these new docs seem relevant https://nix.dev/manual/nix/development/store/derivation/index.html | 10:36:50 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | also its subpages | 10:36:59 |
 emily | In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org
https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/12764 OK it's done (pending CI) seems better to just ignore /libcmd/*.hh etc. rather than having an extra step for every new header | 12:17:07 |
|  sinan changed their profile picture. | 13:10:48 |
| John Ericson | emily: some libraries do have private headers, however | 14:59:42 |
| John Ericson | I would make more of that cleaning up the configuration headers too | 15:00:03 |
| John Ericson | * I would make more of them cleaning up the configuration headers too | 15:00:08 |
| emily | include-private/? :) | 15:02:27 |
| emily | or include/nix-private, avoids setting up another flag | 15:02:43 |
| John Ericson | hmm maybe | 15:04:52 |
| John Ericson | it is traditional to put the private headers with the source files, but it is also traditional to put the private headers and source files in something like src/ to distinguish from include/ | 15:06:47 |
| John Ericson | Another funny option is ....what happens if one .gitignores a .gitignore? :) | 15:07:27 |
| John Ericson | https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyprogramming/comments/auazfo/what_happens_if_you_put_gitignore_into_a/, oh dope! | 15:08:32 |
| John Ericson | emily: OK pushed a new version doing that | 15:35:35 |
 niko ⚡️ | 
Download IMG_6008-1743089880984.png | 15:38:03 |
| niko ⚡️ | In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org
https://www.reddit.com/r/shittyprogramming/comments/auazfo/what_happens_if_you_put_gitignore_into_a/, oh dope! Dope indeed haha | 15:38:11 |
 fzakaria | That's not bad but definitely a bit confusing; I think having to explain CA + input deriving makes it extra confusing.
I'm trying to better understand how inputDrvs (for input deriving) get replaced with some other hash recursively (hashModulo) | 16:20:53 |
 Martin Schwaighofer | In reply to @fzakaria:one.ems.host
That's not bad but definitely a bit confusing; I think having to explain CA + input deriving makes it extra confusing.
I'm trying to better understand how inputDrvs (for input deriving) get replaced with some other hash recursively (hashModulo) I'm kind of in the process of implementing that for github.com/mschwaig/laut, except that the input hashes I generate for CA derivations are not based on the ATerm format (for now), but on a canonicalized version of the JSON representation of the derivation.
That implementation is also meant to be readable/understandable. | 16:48:48 |
| Martin Schwaighofer | * I'm kind of in the process of implementing that (meaning replacing inputDrvs to get to a hash that only includes resolved dependencies) for github.com/mschwaig/laut, except that the input hashes I generate for CA derivations are not based on the ATerm format (for now), but on a canonicalized version of the JSON representation of the derivation.
That implementation is also meant to be readable/understandable.
| 16:58:00 |
| John Ericson | https://github.com/nixos/nix/commit/11d853462925d0b57fe956962e07edf5751fd4c3 | 20:07:55 |
| John Ericson | I think this commit was a mistake | 20:07:58 |
 Philip Taron (UTC-8) | 2.27.1 and 2.24.13 were both tagged in the NixOS/nix repository. Is there someone on deck to open a PR against nixpkgs? | 21:29:38 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | 
Download image.png | 21:34:12 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | I can do the 2.24.13 one, but the PR to introduce 2.26 was pretty beefy with 2_26 specific code. | 21:34:26 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | If that's the pattern, 2.27 is going to be equally beefy! | 21:35:21 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | cc Robert Hensing (roberth) as the author of the previous big-lift PR, https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/375856. | 21:44:01 |
| emily | if 2.27 is as different from 2.26 as it was from 2.25, something went horribly wrong | 21:48:10 |
| emily | they're the same Meson build system | 21:48:15 |
| Philip Taron (UTC-8) | Yes -- what I mean is that all that code was checked in under pkgs/tools/package-management/nix/vendor/2_26/ -- so this is the version that figures out how to share it | 21:48:51 |
