Nix Hackers | 903 Members | |
| For people hacking on the Nix package manager itself | 189 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Apr 2025 | ||
| release is 9.12.2, so that's long past. | 15:37:10 | |
| 2 Apr 2025 | ||
In reply to @p14:matrix.orgRobert Hensing (roberth): I saw your reaction, was what I wrote clear enough, does this sound like an issue or misuse? | 12:46:19 | |
| Why do I see this difference between the builders of the same unresolved and resolved content-addressed derivation? 🤔
| 13:10:54 | |
| I haven't found time to look into this properly, whether this is a bug or a missing feature, or both. The main constraint for closureInfo etc, is that the info needs to be reproducible, so for example no signatures or other mutable store metadata. ca:fixed: seems like something that should be possible to include | 14:08:20 | |
The --load-db format has come up before. It is entirely forward-incompatible, so we may need to introduce any additions as a new format | 14:09:42 | |
In reply to @roberthensing:matrix.orgGlancing at the load db there are signs the signature is there; is it just not being imported properly, I wonder 🤔 | 14:39:37 | |
| emily ElvishJerricco OK we discussed a bunch and we're liking the sort of compromise you all proposed | 20:30:03 | |
| 2.28 in 25.05 has Mic92's combo build (or something like it) | 20:30:27 | |
| 2.28 after 25.05 is componentized | 20:30:36 | |
| 2.29 in all branches has componentized (2.29 is very unimportant on 25.05 except for new version dogfooders) | 20:31:03 | |
| Also when we re-introduce nix git, we should use the componentized version for that | 20:32:23 | |
| how does that sound? | 20:32:27 | |
| I would like to merge Robert Hensing (roberth)'s open PR right away, for sake of the newer versions and git, and also because I like how it makes a package set for the dependencies, even with the monolithic package for Nix itself | 20:33:19 | |
| Also, since you two (and others) have such strong opinions about this, it would be great if you signed yourselves up as maintainers in Nixpkgs for this :D | 20:35:00 | |
especially because, as ElvishJerricco mentioned, actually the mkMesonPackage stuff and whatnot really ought to not be Nix-specific, but reused for other things like (potentially) systemd | 20:35:32 | |
SGTM, especially if we can get a componentized-compatible overrides interface for patching/build flags/env.NIX_CFLAGS_COMPILE on the monolithic one | 20:40:43 | |
| sorry, I definitely do not have the time and do not feel I understand the packaging well enough to :( | 20:41:03 | |
| I guessed I mixed up my metaphors here, what about just on the monolithic package? | 20:42:03 | |
| (poly package maintenance for systemd is an orthogonal question) | 20:43:04 | |
| is the idea to keep the monolithic package around? I assumed that we'd want to switch to the componentized one early in 25.11 to shake out any issues well ahead of release | 20:56:43 | |
| emily: yes, yeah the idea is to get rid it early in the cycle | 20:59:57 | |
| so we are not in this some position come november | 21:00:02 | |
| I asked this on twitter but maybe here is a better place.
| 22:55:51 | |
| Is this a bug in Nix or something I'm missing. | 22:56:04 | |
| 3 Apr 2025 | ||
| * so we are not in this same position come november | 03:12:00 | |
| 11:41:55 | ||
| fzakaria: what do you mean by often? is this for the same commit? | 12:16:39 | |
I can also recommend: nixpkgs.url = "git+https://github.com/Mic92/nixpkgs?shallow=1&ref=main"; | 12:17:10 | |
| 12:52:04 | ||
does the shallow do anything ? I would suspect it's the default | 17:50:38 | |