| 30 Dec 2024 |
 Leonardo Santiago | is there any simple way to replicate that behavior without having to mimic the c++ code? i don't really understand what constraints are at play here so for me it seems just overcomplicating for (seemingly) no reason, but I'm sure there's some motive behind all this | 14:54:27 |
| 31 Dec 2024 |
|  zantonarthwyng joined the room. | 01:10:59 |
| 1 Jan 2025 |
| zantonarthwyng removed their display name zantonarthwyng. | 06:39:36 |
| zantonarthwyng left the room. | 06:43:45 |
|  butterbohn joined the room. | 11:35:50 |
| butterbohn left the room. | 13:05:59 |
|  NixOS Moderation Botchanged room power levels. | 14:26:12 |
| 2 Jan 2025 |
|  error_pro joined the room. | 10:12:04 |
| 4 Jan 2025 |
|  Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) left the room. | 15:30:46 |
| 7 Jan 2025 |
|  @annatrans:matrix.org joined the room. | 02:16:02 |
| 8 Jan 2025 |
| NixOS Moderation Bot banned @annatrans:matrix.org (spam). | 11:57:18 |
| 10 Jan 2025 |
| Leonardo Santiago | what's the difference between nix_store_realise and nix_string_realise when the value is a derivation path? and is there a way to build multiple paths when the derivation itself can't be built? or do i need to just call nix_store_realise in a loop - this does not seem very efficient | 14:12:30 |
| Leonardo Santiago | * what's the difference between nix_store_realise and nix_string_realise when the value is a derivation path? and is there a way to build multiple (input source) paths when the derivation itself can't be built? or do i need to just call nix_store_realise in a loop - this does not seem very efficient | 14:12:43 |
| Leonardo Santiago | * what's the difference between nix_store_realise and nix_string_realise when the value is a derivation path? and is there a way to build multiple (input source) paths when the derivation itself can't be built? calling nix_store_realise in a loop does not seem very efficient | 14:13:05 |
|  Alexander Fuchs left the room. | 15:02:44 |
| Leonardo Santiago | basically, is there any intent to add Store::buildPaths to the C API | 16:16:43 |
| 11 Jan 2025 |
|  pandapip1 joined the room. | 21:23:02 |
| 14 Jan 2025 |
 Mic92 | I used nixstorerealize instead of buildPaths in the past | 13:39:33 |
| Mic92 | I used nix_store_realize instead of buildPaths in the past | 13:39:49 |
| 15 Jan 2025 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | contributions welcome | 06:19:41 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | we do have nix_string_realise, in case your paths come from the same string in the expression language | 06:20:43 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) |
what's the difference
The string one also works for strings that have multiple store paths in them, whereas nix_store_realise doesn't require the nix-expr library
| 06:22:58 |
| Leonardo Santiago | honestly I have been thinking about contributing given the amount of time I have been reading nix source code the last couple of days, but I have literally 0 experience in C++ | 15:23:43 |
| Leonardo Santiago | and most of the code still confuses me, specially regarding inheritance and file importing that creates "spooky action from distance" | 15:25:04 |
| Leonardo Santiago | but yeah, right now I need to implement a way to build a derivation through the C FFI, and honestly I think the easiest way will be to re-export as string, eval it, and use nix_string_realise onto it | 15:32:40 |
| 16 Jan 2025 |
|  watersucks changed their profile picture. | 02:55:40 |
| watersucks changed their profile picture. | 03:07:10 |
| 17 Jan 2025 |
| Leonardo Santiago | hmph, not as easy as I thought. when you parse the derivation from the file, it loses the contexts on the strings, and there's not simple way to readd it, such that if I just try to export it back to a derivation it does not return to the same one | 18:34:15 |
| Leonardo Santiago | my idea was to parse builtins.derivation as a function and then pass an attrset as argument, to see if I could generate the exact same derivation, but I guess this is not as easy as I initially thought | 18:35:01 |
| 19 Jan 2025 |
| Leonardo Santiago | I mean, it works, but it does not generate the same derivation back, because I cannot for the life of me make inputSrcs and inputDrvs appear in the resulting derivation. | 16:01:45 |
