Sender | Message | Time |
---|---|---|
21 Oct 2024 | ||
hexa | Download image.png | 18:34:36 |
ReecerTV joined the room. | 18:54:55 | |
ReecerTV set a profile picture. | 18:59:17 | |
(artur 'manuel) changed their display name from (lambda (f l) (format nil "~a ~a")) "Artur" "Manuel" to (artur 'manuel). | 20:04:36 | |
maka_77x joined the room. | 20:05:37 | |
22 Oct 2024 | ||
@xyven:matrix.org left the room. | 02:02:02 | |
Randy Eckenrode | In reply to @matthewcroughan:defenestrate.itfyi https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/350374 | 03:07:57 |
human joined the room. | 04:49:17 | |
@zarel_it:matrix.org left the room. | 09:31:33 | |
raf | Is the formatting check failing for nixos/tests/all-tests.nix my fault, or can it be overlooked? Formatting it with nixfmt-rfc-style *really* messes up the structure, so I don't think it's expected to be formatted via nixfmt? | 09:32:35 |
raf | Nvm, it was caused a formatting mistake in the test. | 09:38:05 |
rnhmjoj joined the room. | 10:37:25 | |
niko ⚡️ | (Cross-posting from nix discord, figured I’d get a response here faster)
Okay, but what if that „overkill” is what I want and what I need? Can I manually specify all the 3 platforms? Does our cross infra consider that possibility? | 11:36:16 |
K900 | Why do you want that? | 11:37:39 |
K900 | Are you trying to do some sort of Canadian cross setup? | 11:38:49 |
niko ⚡️ | In reply to @k900:0upti.meI’d want to build binutils for build = x86_64-linux-gnu, host = x86_64-linux-musl, target = arm-none-eabi. (Not actually binutils specifically in this case, but close enough) and while this isn’t as bad since I can just say musl is my build, imagine host was arm-linux-musl. Would that mean I have to compile binutils on the arm host? | 11:41:45 |
K900 | Canadian cross is generally not well supported by, um, anything | 11:42:28 |
K900 | But also targetPlatform is kind of a weird implementation detail and ideally we just wouldn't have it at all | 11:43:10 |
K900 | But it has to exist because the GNU toolchain is silly | 11:43:26 |
niko ⚡️ | So generally one has to assume either build=host or host=target | 11:43:55 |
K900 | Ideally the correct way to represent this would be targetPlatform == null | 11:44:45 |
K900 | But currently we have targetPlatform == hostPlatform for most packages even though they don't actually care | 11:45:27 |
niko ⚡️ | So assuming the ideal world where target = null, something like arm-none-eabi-gcc compiled for x86_64-linux-gnu loses the arm-none-eabi information and it’s not relevant for the cross infra, is that right? | 11:46:50 |
K900 | No, the packages that do still have one specific target will still have targetPlatform | 11:47:48 |
K900 | But something like, I don't know, Qt doesn't have anything that could reasonably be called a targetPlatform | 11:48:19 |
niko ⚡️ | Ah, okay, that’s what you meant, sorry | 11:48:20 |
niko ⚡️ changed their profile picture. | 11:49:17 | |
aktaboot changed their profile picture. | 12:11:12 | |
@rnhmjoj:maxwell.ydns.eu left the room. | 12:40:06 | |
Ihar Hrachyshka | Confused why the shell file name expansion doesn't work here:
This fails as follows:
Interesting that the file expansion in | 13:52:37 |