Since the tool is exposed more prominently now, we should clear up what
it is and note that it is to be considered unstable, i.e. we may change
it if the necessity arises. (In practice it is probably going to be
fairly stable though, as compiler interfaces tend to be quite stable.)
Should we add a version?
The cc and bintools wrapper contained ad hoc bootstrapping logic for
expand-response-params (which was callPackage-ed in a let binding). This
lead to the strange situation that the bootstrapping logic related to
expand-response-params is split between the wrapper derivations (where
it is duplicated) and the actual stdenv bootstrapping.
To clean this up, the wrappers simply should take expand-response-params
as an ordinary input: They need an adjacent expand-response-params (i.e.
one that runs on their host platform), but don't care about the how.
Providing this is only problematic during stdenv bootstrapping where we
have to pull it from the previous stage at times.
We don't need to artificially make sure that we can execute the wrapper
scripts on the build platform by using stdenv's shell (which comes from
buildPackages) since our cross infrastructure will get us the wrapper
from buildPackages. The upside of this change is that cross-compiled
wrappers (e.g. pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform.gcc) will actually work
when executed!
For bootstrapping this is also not a problem, since we have a long
build->build platform chain so runtimeShell is just as good as
stdenvNoCC.shell. We do fall back to old ways, though, by explicitly
using the bootstrap-tools shell in stage2, so the adjacent bash is only
used from stage4 onwards. This is unnecessary in principle (I'll try
removing this hack in the future), but ensures this change causes zero
rebuilds.
M124 shipped with broken `--ozone-platform-hint` flag handling, which we
rely on NIXOS_OZONE_WL (wayland) environment variable.
This resulted in chromium M124 opening as blank/transparent window under
wayland.
X11 continued to work fine, which is why our X11-only chromium VM test
did not catch this.
See https://issues.chromium.org/issues/329678163 for details.
Fortunately, the fix for that which landed in M125, applies cleanly on
M124, so we do just that and essentially backport that fix to M124.
