NixOS GSoC | 246 Members | |
| 24 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 20 Mar 2024 | ||
In reply to @eureka-cpu:matrix.org* see responses since if you want to persue std::filesystem::path, but if the other one has fewer applicants so far then yes, I would like everyone to spread out so we can accept as much as possible | 19:57:17 | |
| In my application, can I apply for both, or only one or the other? | 20:15:35 | |
In reply to @eureka-cpu:matrix.orgyou can hand in more then one application if I'm not mistaken | 20:25:49 | |
| IHi everyone! I'm Rafael Girão from Portugal (rafaelsgirao on GitHub), and I'm finishing a Bsc. in Computer Science & Engineering @ Técnico Lisboa this spring. I've been daily driving NixOS for almost two years now and I really enjoy tinkering with my Nix(OS) systems. While I'm a new contributor to Although I'm interested in the nixpkgs pnpm tooling idea, since it's a project I stumbled upon when I attempted to package Ferdium from source instead of using a Are ideas outside the list something being considered? If so, who should I talk to about my own idea proposal? Thanks in advance! | 21:27:57 | |
| * Hi everyone! I'm Rafael Girão from Portugal (rafaelsgirao on GitHub), and I'm finishing a Bsc. in Computer Science & Engineering @ Técnico Lisboa this spring. I've been daily driving NixOS for almost two years now and I really enjoy tinkering with my Nix(OS) systems. While I'm a new contributor to Although I'm interested in the nixpkgs pnpm tooling idea, since it's a project I stumbled upon when I attempted to package Ferdium from source instead of using a Are ideas outside the list something being considered? If so, who should I talk to about my own idea proposal? Thanks in advance! | 21:28:04 | |
Yes. Just post it here or open a issue in https://github.com/NixOS/GSoC/issues/ and if it's a good idea we can try to find a potential mentor. | 21:56:22 | |
| 21 Mar 2024 | ||
| 09:48:36 | ||
| 12:41:56 | ||
In reply to @janik0:matrix.orgThanks! I'll write an issue soon | 13:41:29 | |
| 18:02:51 | ||
| 22 Mar 2024 | ||
| John Ericson: Re: GCC project - Requesting a review of my initial draft proposal (here: https://github.com/cloudripper/GSoC-24/blob/main/gsoc-proposal-draft.pdf). Please let me know if I need to be more granular or descriptive in my project plan or abstract - and if there are any other important project-specific sections you feel I should include (I will include other personal sections prior to submission). Additionally, if there are others interested in this project, I would be happy to modify as needed to try and avoid overlap. | 00:39:44 | |
In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org Ah, I see. I looked around a bit more at Exherbo's GCC build script and it looks like they just turn off a lot of features in the source tree before configuring the project, along with explicitly specifying many of the build tools (https://gitlab.exherbo.org/exherbo/arbor/-/blob/master/packages/sys-devel/gcc/gcc.exlib?ref_type=heads#L172). Also, I think I found an old thread talking about Exherbo that you created a while ago and I'll look into that for more info on Exherbo's relevance to Nix (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/21471). One thing I'm still a bit confused about though, is how the Also, is it okay if I direct message you if I have any more questions? I'd prefer not to clog up the chat here. | 01:34:42 | |
In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.org* Ah, I see. I looked around a bit more at Exherbo's GCC build script and it looks like they just turn off a lot of features in the source tree before configuring the project, along with explicitly specifying many of the build tools (https://gitlab.exherbo.org/exherbo/arbor/-/blob/master/packages/sys-devel/gcc/gcc.exlib?ref_type=heads#L172). Also, I think I found an old thread talking about Exherbo that you created a while ago and I'll look into that for more info on Exherbo's relevance to Nix (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/21471). One thing I'm still a bit confused about though, is how the Also, is it okay if I direct message you if I have any more questions? I'd prefer not to clog up the chat here. | 01:35:35 | |
| 04:47:43 | ||
| oh I missed these | 14:49:13 | |
| will respond! | 14:49:15 | |
In reply to @thatliuser:matrix.orghttps://gitlab.exherbo.org/exherbo/arbor/-/tree/master/packages/sys-libs/libgcc look for the individual libarries | 15:39:24 | |
| the gcc one will still be for the compiler itself | 15:39:30 | |
| I think better to clog up the chat here unless it gets really into the weeds | 15:39:49 | |
| if it is not gsoc specific we can also take it a dev channel or the nixpkgs issue for this | 15:40:00 | |
| (I think there was a nixpkgs issue? If not I should make one and link it from the gsoc) | 15:40:10 | |
In reply to @cldrpr:matrix.orgonly comment I don't think there needs to be a separate design phase | 15:41:45 | |
| rather I think it will be an iterative process of mentee trying things, and mentor offering feedback | 15:42:08 | |
| I have a very specific vision in mind as to how this should work, and the draft PR already that was linked in the issue, but I expect to only be able to be able to convey that to anay mentee though an interative / dialogue process | 15:43:08 | |
| and also incrementally untangling things that exist, so stuff can fall back into place in a better way | 15:43:32 | |
| I forget if I put this in the issue, but I suspect there would first be a "gcc-ng" totally separate toolchain, and then (possibly post summer) there would be a process of making it the default GCC one | 15:44:22 | |
In reply to @Ericson2314:matrix.orgThanks for the input. Just to be clear, are you referring to this PR: (https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/132343)? Also, I came across the work you've done in the "gcc-ng-12" branch in your nixpkgs fork - would that be your expected starting point for the project? | 23:40:20 | |
| cldrpr: yes that's right. Start with that. The gcc 12 one is only a few hours work different so pretty much the same to me | 23:43:13 | |
| 23 Mar 2024 | ||
| Hello everyone! I'd like to work on the project 'Nix Internals: Use std::filesystem::path for Path'. I see there are others already interested in that project, so I do not mean to bring unwanted competition. Nevertheless, C++ is my preferred language, so I really like the idea of following cxx 17 standards. Also, I've had some experience with cross-dev unix-to-windows (a nightmare), and I like the mission goal of bringing anything unix to windows (hence, the cross-dev). My experience with nix is setting up containerized dev environments to keep things consistent for multiple users, so I really believe in nix and think it's a highly effective tool for something that is otherwise a complete nightmare. I could have more experience because I don't daily-drive. My platform is using nix package manager on gentoo w/ openrc init. Can operate in a more integrated environment (nixos, systemd + nix) if this is a problem. Skills are C, C++, sh, (some) lisp Sorry for being a little late to the party.. chaotic last weeks - open to other suggestions, if we're trying to spread proposals | 00:20:44 | |
| Couple thoughts: instead of changing instances of <code>Path</code> to <code>std::filesystem::path</code>, what about changing <code>std::string typedef</code> to <code>std::filesystem::path</code> - then working from there. Keeps interface the same for other developers and follows pre-established naming conventions. Looks better being grouped with <code>CanonPath, Path, etc.</code> and makes more intuitive sense not knowing the reason for <code>std::filesystem::path</code> and using the other paths. Could make some documentation that explains the mechanisms of Path andwhat exactly it's invoking. Other developers won't really need to know if it's cross-platform or not and can happily carry on. OR, what about making a class <code>Path</code> that handles the boiler-plate of conversion from <code>std::string</code> to <code>std::filesystem::path</code>, and if that boiler-plate is done successfully then it solves the problem at its root. Are you SET on changing something like <code>Path path</code> to <code>std::filesystem::path path</code> to be explicit of what the object is/don't want to mess around with any naming convention benefits of keeping the existing <code>Path</code> Both routes I think are effective and that's the real question. | 00:22:17 | |