Richard Feldman (Feb 07 2025 at 18:00): Richard Feldman (Feb 07 2025 at 18:00):if I remember right, I think Debian wants additions to apt to link libraries dynamically if those libraries are part of apt (or something like that)
Richard Feldman (Feb 07 2025 at 18:01):if that's right, we might want to look into having the build be configurable to either statically or dynamically link libc, llvm, and lld
Richard Feldman (Feb 07 2025 at 18:01):since dynamically is what apt might want
Richard Feldman (Feb 07 2025 at 18:03):and of course anyone using Debian, Ubuntu, etc would want to do apt-get install roc, so it seems reasonable to think about that use case in advance :big_smile:
Anton (Feb 07 2025 at 18:37):Richard Feldman said:
if I remember right, I think Debian wants additions to apt to link libraries dynamically if those libraries are part of apt (or something like that)
Yes:
Some software packages include in their distribution convenience copies of code from other software packages, generally so that users compiling from source don’t have to download multiple packages. Debian packages should not make use of these convenience copies unless the included package is explicitly intended to be used in this way. 16 If the included code is already in the Debian archive in the form of a library, the Debian packaging should ensure that binary packages reference the libraries already in Debian and the convenience copy is not used. If the included code is not already in Debian, it should be packaged separately as a prerequisite if possible. 17
From https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#embedded-code-copies
Anton (Feb 07 2025 at 18:39):Richard Feldman said:
if that's right, we might want to look into having the build be configurable to either statically or dynamically link libc, llvm, and lld
I'll add this to my TODO's :)
Brendan Hansknecht (Feb 08 2025 at 01:51):dynamically link llvm
llvm doesn't actually support this (at least not officially, I guess it could be tried though).
Brendan Hansknecht (Feb 08 2025 at 01:51):Warning: LLVM-libc is not yet ABI stable; currently only static linking is supported
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 01:55):huh, TIL!
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 01:55):well that certainly simplifies things haha
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 01:55):although I think llvm may have more dependencies than just libc, if I remember right
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 01:56):possibly z3?
Brendan Hansknecht (Feb 08 2025 at 02:12):https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#software
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 02:37):also for reference, zig itself recently landed in apt: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zig0.13_0.13.0+dfsg-1.html
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 02:39):and it appears that the name roc is available :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:40):Beating the Rocq name confusion allegations, one package at a time
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:40):Really not worried about that, as an aside
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 02:41):also available on nixpkgs
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:42):Soooo maybe we should try to reserve those ASAP?
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 02:48):I don't think reserving them is really a thing
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 02:48):we talked about it years ago
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:49):At least for nixpkgs, I'm sure we could put out a v0.0.1 dummy. I think squatting would be okay here. We could even do it for our v0.0.0-alpha1
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:49):Other package managers, I'm not sure
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:49):I understand not wanting to set the expectation that we're making releases
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:50):But I think it's worse for us to lose roc
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:50):I'm sure the odds of that happening are really low
Sam Mohr (Feb 08 2025 at 02:50):But, you never know
jan kili (Feb 08 2025 at 20:32):Richard Feldman said:
also for reference, zig itself recently landed in apt: https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zig0.13_0.13.0+dfsg-1.html
I wonder why it doesn't appear in Debian's package search or on Zig's installation guide page.
Richard Feldman (Feb 08 2025 at 20:39):I think it's been newly added but hasn't made it into a stable distro release yet
Brendan Hansknecht (Feb 08 2025 at 20:42):Kinda surprising it isn't in sid (unstable) yet if it was merged a month ago
Andrew Kelley (Feb 08 2025 at 20:52):maybe it hasn't been approved by the ftp masters yet
Anton (Feb 26 2025 at 17:37):I'm going to try to get roc on nixpkgs
Anton (Feb 28 2025 at 12:26):What should our brief description be on nixpkgs for roc? This will show up if you search for Roc on https://search.nixos.org/packages
Examples:
Sam Mohr (Feb 28 2025 at 12:44):"Fast, friendly, and functional programming language"
Richard Feldman (Feb 28 2025 at 15:06):I'd just say "Fast, friendly, functional programming language"
Anton (Mar 03 2025 at 17:40):I've got a package.nix file working on macos aarch64+x86 and linux aarch64+x86 now it's just the formalities :)
Anton (Mar 05 2025 at 15:24):My PR is up on nixpkgs, please give it a thumbs up on github so it doesn't get forgotten in the ocean of nixpkgs commits :p
Last updated: Jul 06 2025 at 12:14 UTC