Somewhat saner cross-compiling through bootstrapping #21915
Somewhat saner cross-compiling through bootstrapping #219157c6f434c merged 0 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
Conversation
|
@Ericson2314, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @edolstra, @viric, @vcunat, @LnL7 and @copumpkin to be potential reviewers. |
|
@nbp This first bit isn't even tempted to use |
Ericson2314
added
the
6.topic: cross-compilation
Ericson2314
added
9.needs: changelog
Ericson2314
changed the title
Ericson2314
added
the
0.kind: enhancement
shlevy
left a comment
shlevy
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall 👍
One question: Why does "libiconv: TEMP force building library improperly for target plat like libc" have "TEMP" in the message?
pkgs/top-level/stage.nix
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you open an issue to track the eventual removal? Perhaps after the next release we can add a deprecation message with builtins.trace
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh I already removed crossSystem (it's just used for picking stdenvs now). I was going to remove stdenv.cross after in a kind of victory lap :).
|
@shlevy ah yes, I'll make that message less scary looking as it's only temp in the larger scheme of things, not like something that should have been squashed. Then again, this PR only sets up host vs target but doesn't actually utilize it, so I should indeed check if that commit is necessary. |
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
cross-tepid
branch
from
7b7d87a to
8847bd8
Compare
|
Hmm, the main non-cross tests fail on the base commit, and this commit—in different ways. Oh our CI... I guess I'll wait until the channel is bumped. Which honestly isn't so bad as I still gotta write the docs (and probably close some port-the-wiki issues on the process, Yay!) |
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
cross-tepid
branch
3 times, most recently
from
cd257fa to
93e24be
Compare
|
OK, got lucky and the channel bumped. But my change from the first commit introduces some sort of infinite loop into the tester (too many recurse from derivations?). I'd love to get a stack overflow with a nix backtrace, but I get neither unfortunately. |
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
cross-tepid
branch
from
93e24be to
8dead50
Compare
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
cross-tepid
branch
6 times, most recently
from
39fb46f to
4c17cd5
Compare
Ericson2314
force-pushed
the
cross-tepid
branch
from
4c17cd5 to
ca8ab80
Compare
4 participants
Motivation for this change
Baby step towards #21268. It's not all the niceness, but it breaks (almost) no hashes of the things we test.
Evaluating
release-cross.nix(which evals nixpkgs over and over again) now takes about 25% longer (me counting in my head). But splicing is only done when cross, so most users will be unaffected. In any event, it should be possible to eventually remove the expensive recursive splicing for cheap flat splicing.I think other than doc, I've gotten everything relevant from the original PR taken care of.
N.B the first commit message has a bunch of info relevant for the whole PR, more or less.
TODO:
Things done
http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nixpkgs/sonarpulse-cross-tepid, c.f. http://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nixpkgs/sonarpulse-cross-compare
CC @shlevy