| 1 Dec 2025 |
 K900 | Anyway, the NDK does not in fact have aa64 host tools | 18:40:43 |
| K900 | So yes | 18:40:50 |
 alexfmpe | right, I'm just clarifying where 'darwin' fits in | 18:41:00 |
 emily | no AArch64 surprises me. you can't do Android dev on AArch64 Chromebooks? | 18:52:47 |
| K900 | You can't even run an IDE on those | 18:55:46 |
| K900 | Can you | 18:55:49 |
| emily | sure you can | 20:05:35 |
| emily | they have built-in Linux VMs with full graphical Wayland app support | 20:05:42 |
| emily | Android Studio is explicitly supported on the Intel ones at least | 20:05:50 |
| emily | no idea about the ARM ones but it'd surprise me if not | 20:05:57 |
| 2 Dec 2025 |
 DavHau | Occasionally I encounter cross packages which simply compile binaries for the wrong platform.
Is there a hook in nixpkgs that I can use to check if all binaries in $out/bin are for the correct platform? | 06:43:18 |
| K900 | I don't think so, but it would be nice to have one | 06:49:49 |
| DavHau | done: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/467183 | 16:04:09 |
| K900 | I wonder how much it'll suck to just add it by default | 16:08:43 |
 hexa | could this work with python3Minimal? | 16:10:25 |
| DavHau | Let's add it by default later. I would like to make it available at all for now.
And yeah, good point, it should use python3Minimal | 16:11:49 |
| hexa | also not sure how fancy we want to go, but couldn't the hook be null in non-cross situations | 16:23:54 |
| hexa | that way we wouldn't have to guard it on every use | 16:24:14 |
| DavHau | I think it would be better to go the route to always include it by default. even in non-cross scenarios. the check is very cheap. | 16:25:21 |
| hexa | yeah, eventually | 21:44:33 |
| hexa | but until then it would ease adoption | 21:44:42 |
| 3 Dec 2025 |
| DavHau | I'm not sure, because maybe someone wants to use it in a non-cross scenario, and then they cannot, because it is null. | 03:42:34 |
|  xin joined the room. | 19:29:39 |
| 4 Dec 2025 |
|  Ido Samuelson joined the room. | 01:45:01 |
|  onur-ozkan joined the room. | 04:20:24 |
| DavHau | How could we prevent contributers from including setuptools-rust as a native build input and force the usage of the setuptoolsRustBuildHook instead?
I've been seeing this multiple times already and it always breaks cross. | 06:07:26 |
| DavHau | The checkBinaryArchHook unfortunately isn't gonna cut it because we don't cross build in CI the trigger the failure. | 06:08:07 |
| DavHau | Or would it make sense to improve setuptools-rust, so it pulls in the hook automatically? | 06:11:35 |
 symphorien | add the hook as propagated build input on setuptools-rust ? | 07:11:40 |
| DavHau | I guess | 07:36:55 |
