Nix + dotnet | 121 Members | |
| 24 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 18 May 2025 | ||
* and if the build really breaks (or anything other unwanted happens) on 9.0.2xx, just specify sdk_9_0_1xx in nix | 22:55:31 | |
| Cool, thank you very much! | 22:55:33 | |
you'd specify sdk_9_0_1xx then, yeah | 22:56:16 | |
| Thank you for the thoughts! | 22:57:15 | |
fyi (at least for now) the 1xx feature band is supported for the whole .net version lifetime | 22:57:15 | |
while 2xx and 3xx get EOLed until you land on 4xx | 22:57:27 | |
| That seems interesting. | 22:57:59 | |
because source build officially supports only 1xx | 22:58:36 | |
| so newer feature bands are MS binaries only | 22:58:51 | |
| * so later feature bands are MS binaries only | 22:58:58 | |
So this seems to have worked fine. Thank you again for the thoughts! | 23:10:35 | |
| That's very interesting. Thank you for the thoughts! | 23:10:47 | |
*
So this seems to have worked fine. Thank you again for the thoughts! | 23:11:00 | |
you probably want postPatch, but yeah, lgtm | 23:23:03 | |
Oh, do you have a specific thought on why I should be using postPatch instead of patchPhase for this? | 23:23:37 | |
I'm also doing more in patchPhase than just what I put above, so if you think moving that rm to postPatch instead is good then I'll probably just move the whole block. | 23:24:50 | |
* I'm also doing more in patchPhase than just what I put above, so if you think moving that rm to postPatch instead is good then I'll probably just rename the whole block. | 23:24:58 | |
overriding patchPhase will break patches iirc | 23:24:58 | |
Eh fair, I'll probably split it into two commits (updating and then swapping to postPatch) - Thanks for the thoughts! | 23:26:04 | |
| 27 May 2025 | ||
| 19:17:22 | ||
| 28 May 2025 | ||
| 15:18:28 | ||
| 15:21:57 | ||
| 29 May 2025 | ||
| Hey, I'm here again to cause issues. :P
| 02:14:32 | |
| Does anyone happen to have any ideas? | 02:14:42 | |
Oh maybe that's my fault for not fully fixing the for project in... section - Lemme see if I can fix it. | 02:16:44 | |
| Yep, silly me - That was it. | 02:17:23 | |
| Now I'm running into NETSDK1004 so that's definitely progress! | 02:38:00 | |
| You might want to look at
| 11:59:28 | |
Thanks for the suggestion! I already am looking at Avalonia and had originally copied runtimeIds and configurePhase without modification, which caused the initial MSB1009 issue that I was getting. Removing the project for loop fixed that, as I only have the one project file. Unfortunately for me, there's no listed fix for NETSDK1004 in the Avalonia package.nix | 13:11:47 | |
* Thanks for the suggestion! I already am looking at Avalonia and had originally copied runtimeIds and configurePhase without modification, which caused the initial MSB1009 issue that I was getting. Removing the project for loop fixed that, as I only have the one project file. Unfortunately for me, there's no listed fix for NETSDK1004 in the Avalonia package.nix. | 13:11:59 | |