| 25 May 2021 |
 maralorn | cdepillabout: I think it would be very hard to do it from scratch. But I feel like it should be possible to take what we have and iterate on it. | 11:35:50 |
| maralorn | Something like we probably can‘t do good, but we certainly can do better.^^ | 11:36:25 |
 cdepillabout | That's a good point | 11:37:38 |
| maralorn | sterni (he/him): Now that I think about it. Don‘t you think it’s kinda lame to compile static lens and random. I mean who needs a static compiled library.^^ Wouldn‘t it be much more awesome to statically compile some tools which people could actually use. e.g. ghcup. | 12:08:24 |
| maralorn | Huh, I wonder if you use pkgsStatic on something with justStaticExecutables do you get a store path with a trivial closure? | 12:09:41 |
|  Christoph joined the room. | 15:00:51 |
|  zwro changed their display name from zwro to zero. | 15:23:22 |
| zwro changed their display name from zero to z. | 15:23:54 |
 sterni (he/him) | maralorn: justStaticExecutables are already pretty good with dynamic linking since all haskell dependencies are linked statically anyways, dynamic linking is only used for libc etc. | 15:35:38 |
| sterni (he/him) | maralorn: Yeah of course, feel free to add some tools as well. The intention was really to test some very important libraries | 15:36:04 |
| sterni (he/him) | we might want to add hpack, cabal2nix, … to the list | 15:36:14 |
| maralorn | In reply to @sternenseemann:systemli.org
maralorn: justStaticExecutables are already pretty good with dynamic linking since all haskell dependencies are linked statically anyways, dynamic linking is only used for libc etc. Yeah, I know. That's why I was hoping that those derivations would actually be completely runtime dependency less. | 15:39:37 |
| sterni (he/him) | pkgsStatic would be yes | 15:39:59 |
| maralorn | And I mean not only philosophically or the binary. But the actual nix closure of the output. | 15:40:18 |
| sterni (he/him) | yeah the closure is one path for pkgsStatic | 15:41:05 |
| sterni (he/him) | at least in normal cases | 15:41:10 |
| sterni (he/him) | or at least it should :p | 15:41:19 |
| sterni (he/him) | but honestly it's not that interesting unless you are copying closures around a lot which are all built with different versions of stdenv | 15:41:53 |
| maralorn | Cool | 15:41:54 |
| sterni (he/him) | normally you have libc etc. in store anyways | 15:42:10 |
| maralorn | True | 15:42:20 |
| sterni (he/him) | Inviting everyone with restart-jobs to hunt for stale builds :) https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/123682#issuecomment-847975298 | 15:42:50 |
| sterni (he/him) | unfortunately I don't remember what other packages had a build failure due to Killed by $thing | 15:43:07 |
| maralorn | sterni (he/him): I have been restarting jobs for days. But it doesn't really matter. We only mark builds that fail themselves as broken. So the worst thing that could happen is that they are truly broken without us noticing. But when all maintained jobs are fine, I think we are fine. | 15:47:20 |
| sterni (he/him) | yeah the impact is low with our new approach at least | 15:47:45 |
| sterni (he/him) | I mean we could also hope a merge of master triggers a full rebuild and everything goes well this time :p | 15:48:01 |
| sterni (he/him) | but a bit scared in light of how slow the darwin builds where | 15:48:19 |
| sterni (he/him) | * but a bit scared in light of how slow the darwin builds were | 15:48:24 |
| sterni (he/him) | https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZvqZOdOse1lIAJxccsWdyFNeDLyVmoCUvI12LJNFMks | 15:49:13 |
| maralorn | In reply to @maralorn:maralorn.de
sterni (he/him): I have been restarting jobs for days. But it doesn't really matter. We only mark builds that fail themselves as broken. So the worst thing that could happen is that they are truly broken without us noticing. But when all maintained jobs are fine, I think we are fine. In the past I have restarted all failed jobs once or twice, but that's quite a shotgun approach. So now I resorted to picking single jobs to restart. | 15:50:30 |
