sd: init at 0.5.0 #60241
sd: init at 0.5.0 #60241
Conversation
| sha256 = "1y44qizciir75d1srwm1mlskhflab2b6153d19vblw410in82f5d"; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| cargoSha256 = "1gls68lw8a2c3gsav70l2wasrgav68q5w1nf50jsrbqq9kb4i7nb"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I get 0lg8lm4rv9ai61621l6pm19hnj7xzbiaj9v46ihfij1bw7ii54v4 instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is 0lg8lm4rv9ai61621l6pm19hnj7xzbiaj9v46ihfij1bw7ii54v4 kernel-specific or something? I'm currently building this on darwin, and changing either the sha256 or the cargoSha256 to 01g... results in a sha mismatch and failed build.
If this is supposed to be the cargoSha256, is there a way I can check this via command line (like with nix-prefetch-github)?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does it build for you now?
Yeah, I'm talking about cargoSha256.
I don't know what the reason could be, I'm building on NixOS.
I don't think there's a command to check the hash.
@Mic92 Do you know what cargoSha256 depends on? Can we build the same Rust derivations on Linux and MacOS?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, it builds for me. ./result/bin/sd works fine too. I assume it fails on NixOS?
I can keep this open and test on a linux machine this weekend.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Your new comit works, but only with my hash.
We could use if stdenv.isDarwin then "yourHash" else "myHash" as a workaround.
But we should ask someone who knows about the nixpkgs rust infrastructure whether that's normal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This definitely shouldn't happen. The hash is computed from the crate name, version, features, and the (transitive) dependencies:
Cargo.lock should fix all dependencies. I think it is more useful to find the source of this difference.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, builds fine on my NixOS machine with the cargoSha256 in the PR (1gls68lw8a2c3gsav70l2wasrgav68q5w1nf50jsrbqq9kb4i7nb).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, yeah it does work now. I wonder what I had changed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yup, double-checked on darwin and (arch) linux, both work fine.
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10
10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
labels
|
@Amar1729 your commit msg should be formatted like
|
|
@GrahamcOfBorg build sd |
Amar1729
force-pushed
the
init/sd
branch
2 times, most recently
from
26da70f
to
2df2038
Compare
|
welp that's embarrassing :/ |
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)Note on the relevant documentation -
sddoesn't seem to buildmanpages yet