| 25 Sep 2021 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | that would include the evaluator, when a filtersource predicate causes paths to be added to the store as a side effect | 10:03:31 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | using a library for source filtering is actually very reasonable and can cause this to happen; fetching the library source (eg hercules-ci/gitignore.nix) or doing ifd (eg nix-gitignore) | 10:05:11 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | (partly solved by flakes; another use case could be a library that filter sources based on a haskel cabal file or other kind of project file) | 10:05:51 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | a stackless evaluator would be nice btw, but I'm not sure if C++20 coroutines are the best vehicle for such a transformation | 10:07:43 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | * a stackless evaluator would be nice btw, but I don't know if C++20 coroutines are the best vehicle for such a transformation | 10:09:34 |
 trofi | Weekly complain about broken DNS in nix builders. Today's report: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/139470. Would be nice to get a fix landed to nix in some form. | 21:57:46 |
| 26 Sep 2021 |
|  Tian Gao joined the room. | 02:42:28 |
| trofi | nix error message question: https://dpaste.com/56YEHBN65.txt. Do I read it correctly that meta is not allowed as an attribute in {...} function? | 08:45:34 |
 sterni | trofi: this means you've hit the bootstrapping fetchurl which doesn't accept a meta attribute during evaluation instead of the regular one which does | 08:47:17 |
| sterni | this happens sometimes if you evaluate something which shouldn't be strictly or have some infinite recursion issues in nixpkgs | 08:47:55 |
| trofi | I packages gcc-12 snapshot locally that pulls in new flex depend which probably pulls it in (thus it's "expected" to break). What I don't understand is where in error message it says that restricted (or missing?) fetchpatch is defined.
Is it the same nixpkgs/pkgs/build-support/fetchpatch/default.nix:12 that somehow mangled somewhere else? Or the error points at a wrong place?
| 08:50:17 |
| trofi | * I packaged gcc-12 snapshot locally that pulls in new flex depend which probably pulls it in (thus it's "expected" to break). What I don't understand is where in error message it says that restricted (or missing?) fetchpatch is defined.
Is it the same nixpkgs/pkgs/build-support/fetchpatch/default.nix:12 that somehow mangled somewhere else? Or the error points at a wrong place?
| 08:50:26 |
| trofi | Oh, it's a fetchurl, not fetchpatch. I got lost among those two. Makes more sense now. | 08:52:57 |
| sterni | it seems fetchurl is called via fetchpatch in this case | 08:53:30 |
| 27 Sep 2021 |
|  i509vcb joined the room. | 07:18:55 |
|  entropi joined the room. | 22:41:58 |
| 28 Sep 2021 |
|  N joined the room. | 10:56:34 |
| 29 Sep 2021 |
|  Andrea Pascal joined the room. | 02:45:21 |
 niksnut | Any musl experts want to have a look at this? https://github.com/NixOS/nix/issues/5306 | 12:10:08 |
 Mic92 | Is this not more a case of static archived linked in the wrong ordre? | 12:28:40 |
| Mic92 | * Is this not more a case of static libraries linked in the wrong order? | 12:29:12 |
 baloo | anything I could do to get this moving? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/137197 | 18:32:46 |
| baloo | I'd really like if we could get either this merged, or a release of nix2.3 with the backports | 18:33:36 |
| baloo | the issue has been around for almost 2 months now | 18:34:06 |
 tomberek | I'm unclear on whether the patch is okay in nixpkgs or if Eelco wants a 2.3.16 release. I'd prefer the release. | 19:04:07 |
| baloo | I'd prefer the release as well, but ... it has been 20 days now :/ | 19:10:51 |
| trofi | ${why_not_both} | 21:17:08 |
| 30 Sep 2021 |
|  matrixforever joined the room. | 02:16:06 |
| matrixforever left the room. | 04:36:14 |
| niksnut | I updated the Nix 2.4 release notes (https://github.com/NixOS/nix/pull/5308), please let me know if there is anything I missed. | 15:38:39 |
