The hack of using `crossConfig` to enforce stricter handling of
dependencies is replaced with a dedicated `strictDeps` for that purpose.
(Experience has shown that my punning was a terrible idea that made more
difficult and embarrising to teach teach.)
Now that is is clear, a few packages now use `strictDeps`, to fix
various bugs:
- bintools-wrapper and cc-wrapper
Semi-automatic update generated by https://github.com/ryantm/nixpkgs-update tools.
This update was made based on information from https://repology.org/metapackage/spidermonkey/versions.
These checks were done:
- built on NixOS
- ran ‘/nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4/bin/js52 -h’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4/bin/js52 --help’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4/bin/js52 -v’ and found version 52.7.4
- ran ‘/nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4/bin/js52 --version’ and found version 52.7.4
- ran ‘/nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4/bin/js52-config --version’ and found version 52.7.4
- found 52.7.4 with grep in /nix/store/47rbdzbgccrrdc63fnsnwklria9clmms-spidermonkey-52.7.4
- directory tree listing: https://gist.github.com/7e5182415a0a1bce8071576312c08a3a
Note that a bunch of non-python packages use this attribute already.
Some of those are clearly unaware of the fact that this attribute does
not exists in stdenv because they define it but don't to add it to
their `bulidInputs` :)
Also note that I use `buildInputs` here and only handle regular
builds because python and haskell builders do it this way and I'm not
sure how to properly handle the cross-compilation case.
Semi-automatic update generated by https://github.com/ryantm/nixpkgs-update tools.
This update was made based on information from https://repology.org/metapackage/jruby/versions.
These checks were done:
- built on NixOS
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/jruby -h’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/jruby --help’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/jruby.bash -h’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/jruby.bash --help’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/ruby -h’ got 0 exit code
- ran ‘/nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0/bin/ruby --help’ got 0 exit code
- found 9.1.17.0 with grep in /nix/store/g4a83h4462412zd3cf95j5ny19bxgha6-jruby-9.1.17.0
- directory tree listing: https://gist.github.com/20468ca63db765e0d42a1c93191f0901
upstream issue:
https://bugs.python.org/issue31940
There are two PR's proposed to fix this,
but both seem to be stalling waiting for review.
I previously used what appears to be the favored
of the two approaches[1] to fix this,
with plan of keeping it musl-only until PR was merged.
However, while writing up a commit message
explaining the problem and why it needed fixing...
I investigated a bit and found it increasingly
hard to justify anything other than ...
simply not using lchmod.
Here's what I found:
* lchmod is non-POSIX, seems BSD-only these days
* Functionality of lchmod isn't supported on Linux
* best scenario on Linux would be an error
* POSIX does provide lchmod-esque functionality
with fchmodat(), which AFAICT is generally preferred.
* Python intentionally overlooks fchmodat()[2]
electing instead to use lchmod() behavior
as a proxy for whether fchmodat() "works".
I'm not sure I follow their reasoning...
* both glibc and musl provide lchmod impls:
* glibc returns ENOSYS "not implemented"
* musl implements lchmod with fchmodat(),
and so returns EOPNOTSUPP "op not supported"
* Python doesn't expect EOPNOTSUPP from lchmod,
since it's not valid on BSD's lchmod.
* "configure" doesn't actually check lchmod usefully,
instead checks for glibc preprocessor defines
to indicate if the function is just a stub[3];
somewhat fittingly, if the magic macros are defined
then the next line of the C source is "choke me",
causing the compiler to trip, fall, and point
a finger at whatever is near where it ends up.
(somewhat amusing, but AFAIK effective way to get an error :P)
I'm leaving out links to threads on mailing lists and such,
but for now I hope I've convinced you
(or to those reading commit history: explained my reasons)
that this is a bit of a mess[4].
And so instead of making a big mess messier,
and with hopes of never thinking about this again,
I propose we simply tell Python "don't use lchmod" on Linux.
[1] https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/4783
[2] 28453feaa8/Lib/os.py (L144)
[3] 28453feaa8/configure (L2198)
[4] Messes happen, no good intention goes unpunished :).
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
(cherry picked from commit ba52ae5048)
Following legacy packing conventions, `isArm` was defined just for
32-bit ARM instruction set. This is confusing to non packagers though,
because Aarch64 is an ARM instruction set.
The official ARM overview for ARMv8[1] is surprisingly not confusing,
given the overall state of affairs for ARM naming conventions, and
offers us a solution. It divides the nomenclature into three levels:
```
ISA: ARMv8 {-A, -R, -M}
/ \
Mode: Aarch32 Aarch64
| / \
Encoding: A64 A32 T32
```
At the top is the overall v8 instruction set archicture. Second are the
two modes, defined by bitwidth but differing in other semantics too, and
buttom are the encodings, (hopefully?) isomorphic if they encode the
same mode.
The 32 bit encodings are mostly backwards compatible with previous
non-Thumb and Thumb encodings, and if so we can pun the mode names to
instead mean "sets of compatable or isomorphic encodings", and then
voilà we have nice names for 32-bit and 64-bit arm instruction sets
which do not use the word ARM so as to not confused either laymen or
experienced ARM packages.
[1]: https://developer.arm.com/products/architecture/a-profile
