| 25 Oct 2025 |
 samasaur | it is part of a PR that was mostly purity hacks but i think the logic for setting it to LAST globally is actually just entirely wrong now that frameworks from the SDK are included by default. like it kinda makes sense in a darwin.apple_sdk.frameworks world where frameworks are usually not available (though it should fall back to libraries anyway in that case?), but with the SDK included as an input to every package it just doesn't make sense anymore | 07:30:51 |
| samasaur | which is even supported by that comment saying "on macOS we want to prefer Unix-style headers to Frameworks because we usually do not package the framework" | 07:31:18 |
 K900 | Yeeeeeeeeeeah what the fuck | 07:31:22 |
| samasaur | because we do now package the frameworks | 07:31:23 |
| samasaur | 
Download image.png | 07:31:41 |
| samasaur | this will be fun | 07:31:51 |
| samasaur | (dropping that flag from the setup hook) | 07:32:31 |
| K900 |
# correctly detect our clang compiler
prependToVar cmakeFlags "-DCMAKE_POLICY_DEFAULT_CMP0025=NEW"
| 07:32:47 |
| K900 | This is still there too | 07:32:49 |
| K900 | Pretty sure that policy doesn't even EXIST anymore | 07:33:36 |
| K900 | https://gitlab.kitware.com/cmake/cmake/-/blob/master/Help/policy/CMP0025.rst | 07:34:27 |
| K900 | Yep removed in 4.0 | 07:34:30 |
| samasaur | oh cool | 07:34:40 |
| samasaur | okay let me cancel this build and start a new one with that line gone too | 07:34:51 |
| samasaur | and then i'm gonna go to sleep and we will see what i come back to in the morning | 07:35:05 |
 Randy Eckenrode | Could they be referring to other packages’ frameworks? | 10:36:42 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Though if we don’t package them, why prefer the non-framework when that’s all you’ll find anyway …. | 10:36:50 |
| Randy Eckenrode | e.g., https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/447351 | 10:41:34 |
 emily | destroy it | 12:43:00 |
| samasaur | build successful 🎉 | 17:51:31 |
| samasaur | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/455592 | 17:51:33 |
| emily | K900: (we need a freeze exemption from the RMs to merge that) | 18:08:09 |
| emily | (though I support it) | 18:08:14 |
| K900 | Uhh | 18:08:38 |
| K900 | No we don't? | 18:08:44 |
| K900 | I guess technically this could be considered breaking behavior | 18:08:54 |
| K900 | But come on | 18:08:57 |
| emily | it's a breaking change when there's both a framework and a library with the same name | 18:09:37 |
| emily | which is exactly what Qt is unhappy about | 18:09:42 |
| emily | but I suppose there may not be many other examples than libnetwork/Network | 18:10:16 |
