<manveru>
about the PR, it's totally not finished, i'm still thinking about the best way to enable people to reference `ruby.gems.$gemname`
<manveru>
got some ideas, but still busy with dayjob :)
<manveru>
and yeah, i thought about adding all gems in gem-config, i think it's a good idea, but i think i ran into some dependency conflicts
<manveru>
will need to spend more time on that
<qyliss^work>
There will be some gems in gem-config that are super old or whatever, that would bring down the maximum usable version for all other gems
<qyliss^work>
So I don't think it's always worth it
<zimbatm>
yeah, trimming down gemConfig is also a valid route
<qyliss^work>
I think gemConfig should be as exhaustive as it can be
<zimbatm>
bundler is mainly useful for the dependency resolution here, I think we could get rid of it at runtime
<zimbatm>
same with the ruby package set
<zimbatm>
maybe it should be the list of the 1000 most used gems or something like that
<qyliss^work>
zimbatm: we've talked about this quite a bit already
<zimbatm>
before I joined the channel?
<qyliss^work>
yeah
<qyliss^work>
We tried doing lots of popular gems but Bundler is so slow it was infeasible
<manveru>
ruby.withPackages doesn't use bundler at all, it's still in the set though (still conflicted about it)
<zimbatm>
ok
<qyliss^work>
Can provide logs if you're interested
<zimbatm>
I guess the dependency resolution is close to exponential complexity
<zimbatm>
I think it's fine to just let me know when I am repeating some of the previous point
<zimbatm>
have you discussed about stackage yet?
<manveru>
in passing
<qyliss^work>
Yep
<manveru>
i don't know how stackage compiles their package set
<zimbatm>
they have some docker-thing cobbled up together
<manveru>
after trying a bunch of different automatic approaches, we decided the least time-consuming and easiest to maintain is to do it manually after all :P
<zimbatm>
they use a familiar base image like Ubuntu or Debian
<zimbatm>
then they also have some manual banging at bits until it works
<zimbatm>
as long as the package set is small we can keep it inside of nixpkgs
<zimbatm>
at some point we'll probably want a supporting infrastructure to generate new snapshots
<manveru>
the goal atm is to simply provide a quick and dirty way to use nix-shell with common gems
<zimbatm>
yeah
<manveru>
for everything more, use bundix
<zimbatm>
ruby doesn't have the same problem as haskell regarding compilation times
<manveru>
indeed
<zimbatm>
just nokogiri :p
<manveru>
even nokogiri is pretty fast :)
<manveru>
it's really more about convenience of sharing ruby scripts for me :)
<zimbatm>
in that case we should probably add "pry" to it if it's not already there
<zimbatm>
make a cool ruby hacking environment
<manveru>
it's in
<manveru>
also added camping for fun :P
<zimbatm>
essential :p
<manveru>
bbl, work calls
<zimbatm>
see you
<zimbatm>
do you know if the rubygems API includes the sha256 of all the gems now?
<zimbatm>
I remember we had to actually fetch the gems to discover their sha256