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.
As in:
$ nix eval -f . bash
Also remove the glibc propagation inherit that made these necessary,
stages handle propagating libc themselves (apparently) and
AFAICT no hashes are changed as a result of this.
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
- `localSystem` is added, it strictly supercedes system
- `crossSystem`'s description mentions `localSystem` (and vice versa).
- No more weird special casing I don't even understand
TEMP
Since at least d7bddc27b2, we've had a
situation where one should depend on:
- `stdenv.cc.bintools`: for executables at build time
- `libbfd` or `libiberty`: for those libraries
- `targetPackages.cc.bintools`: for exectuables at *run* time
- `binutils`: only for specifically GNU Binutils's executables,
regardless of the host platform, at run time.
and that commit cleaned up this usage to reflect that. This PR flips the
switch so that:
- `binutils` is indeed unconditionally GNU Binutils
- `binutils-raw`, which previously served that role, is gone.
so that the correct usage will be enforced going forward and everything
is simple.
N.B. In a few cases `binutils-unwrapped` (which before and now was
unconditionally actual GNU binutils), rather than `binutils` was used to
replace old `binutils-raw` as it is friendly towards some cross
compilation usage by avoiding a reference to the next bootstrapping
change.
First, we need check against the host platform, not the build platform.
That's simple enough.
Second, we move away from exahustive finite case analysis (i.e.
exhaustively listing all platforms the package builds on). That only
work in a closed-world setting, where we know all platforms we might
build one. But with cross compilation, we may be building for arbitrary
platforms, So we need fancier filters. This is the closed world to open
world change.
The solution is instead of having a list of systems (strings in the form
"foo-bar"), we have a list of of systems or "patterns", i.e. attributes
that partially match the output of the parsers in `lib.systems.parse`.
The "check meta" logic treats the systems strings as an exact whitelist
just as before, but treats the patterns as a fuzzy whitelist,
intersecting the actual `hostPlatform` with the pattern and then
checking for equality. (This is done using `matchAttrs`).
The default convenience lists for `meta.platforms` are now changed to be
lists of patterns (usually a single pattern) in
`lib/systems/for-meta.nix` for maximum flexibility under this new
system.
Fixes#30902
Resolved the following conflicts (by carefully applying patches from the both
branches since the fork point):
pkgs/development/libraries/epoxy/default.nix
pkgs/development/libraries/gtk+/3.x.nix
pkgs/development/python-modules/asgiref/default.nix
pkgs/development/python-modules/daphne/default.nix
pkgs/os-specific/linux/systemd/default.nix
