-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
piston-cli: 1.4.3 -> 1.5.0 #370707
piston-cli: 1.4.3 -> 1.5.0 #370707
Conversation
|
Logs:
|
45617d3
to
8137c4b
Compare
Unrelated, but I tried to run nixpkgs-review and for over an hour it did not finish. I have 16GB or ram and a Ryzen 2600X. My machine is not old or slow. Since when does nixpkgs-review take so much memory and so much time to use? It wasn't like this ~3 years ago when I first got into Nix. |
Local eval is very RAM hungry. I did a PoC to emit the data using builtins.trace to avoid having to collect all the stuff in one structure tho. I run the reviews in a 32GB Ryzen 5 5600G tho |
|
Proof of concept. I wanted to do evals as a build on a remote builder. |
Even with requests-cache added to pythonRelaxDeps, I get an error
|
|
I think the conclusion here is that I suck at packaging Python apps. |
Everyone here sucked at it in some point. Nix is much more strict and rigorous in the details. All other methods are much more flexible and this makes stuff a little harder. It happens. I am using Nix and contributing to nixpkgs for about 4 years and I still often discover new cool things! |
Things done
Updated piston-cli to latest version
nix.conf
? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxed
sandbox = true
nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD"
. Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/
)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.