Nix Package Manager development | 858 Members | |
| For people hacking on Nix: https://github.com/NixOS/nix Nix maintainers can be reached here. | 184 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 26 Oct 2025 | ||
nix derivation show on it? | 22:39:10 | |
not sure what you mean by this, it’s pre-commit | 22:39:23 | |
| in nixpkgs@25.05 | 22:39:28 | |
| oh pre-commit itself; i thought maybe a drv it depended on | 22:39:49 | |
| https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/nixos-25.05/pkgs/by-name/pr/pre-commit/package.nix Nothing looks out of the ordinary | 22:41:14 | |
i don’t see a sandboxProfile there indeed — can i get a nix derivation show please? :) | 22:51:36 | |
| Hmmm, did python packages switch to structuredAttrs? | 22:53:18 | |
| I'm looking at the code that this message originates from and I'm suspicious | 22:53:44 | |
| Ah, I think I know what's up. pre-commit needs dotnet, but it has:
| 23:00:07 | |
| 23:02:47 | |
| Really weird that it gets propagated that far: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/5754cad82cf6180cfc5f147b32dd111fd4222c8e/pkgs/development/compilers/dotnet/build-dotnet.nix#L186-L191 | 23:03:57 | |
| not exactly that surprising? | 23:05:39 | |
| 27 Oct 2025 | ||
| How would you read
Currently it is syntax error for some reason. | 02:26:41 | |
I am for the second, e.g.fetchurl <| [repo1 repo2 repo2] |> (repo: "${repo}/someurl.tar.gz") | 02:26:46 | |
| chatgpt says
so the verbot to use them both in the same expression is unique to Nix | 02:32:04 | |
| Sergei Zimmerman (xokdvium): i was AFK -- i saw the message; not sure what the fix is | 03:26:56 | |
| how did you track it down to dotnet ? Should I strip out dotnet from it ? | 03:27:27 | |
| ok I did
| 03:38:45 | |
| 14:21:57 | ||
| Philip Taron (UTC-8): we should do https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/396451 in nix repository. GHA is getting barely enough attention. I'd appreciate your expertise from nixpkgs CI. | 16:21:31 | |
I noticed when I put the wrong hash for a FOD -- the nix build takes way longer than when it's correct | 18:55:58 | |
| it seems to hang on the download.tar.gz | 18:56:06 | |
| After already having run the build with the correct hash once? | 19:08:55 | |
| 20:10:09 | ||
| 20:29:45 | ||
| Hey peeps, I unknowingly ran into the The point that I don't understand is that every architecture, aarch64, x64_86, etc. all have different hashes. However, I just want to build it for x64_86_linux. So how do I tell ofborg to only build on one architecture and why does the hash that works locally not work with ofborg? | 20:33:55 | |
| * Hey peeps, I unknowingly ran into the ´´´ The point that I don't understand is that every architecture, aarch64, x64_86, etc. all have different hashes. However, I just want to build it for x64_86_linux. So how do I tell ofborg to only build on one architecture and why does the hash that works locally not work with ofborg? | 20:35:08 | |
| * Hey peeps, I unknowingly ran into the
The point that I don't understand is that every architecture, aarch64, x64_86, etc. all have different hashes. However, I just want to build it for x64_86_linux. So how do I tell ofborg to only build on one architecture and why does the hash that works locally not work with ofborg? | 20:37:20 | |
| Well... now that I got another review, suddenly ofborg gives me output that it did successfully built the package for linux (aarch64 and x64_86) but failed for darwin. I am honestly confused as to how to interpret ofborg output. I would appreciate a quick explanation! | 21:16:19 | |
| More of a nixpkgs question generally: https://matrix.to/#/#users:nixos.org. But this might have to do with case sensitivity and whatnot | 23:44:15 | |