| 10 Jul 2025 |
 Charles | probably just man nixos-install and then use the --flake option and any other options as you see fit | 05:16:24 |
| Charles | given that you seem to be using flakes | 05:16:49 |
 Arian | Would be nice if you could connect to a remote builder or daemon store over vsock directly. Is this something that is supported? | 08:43:48 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
Would be nice if you could connect to a remote builder or daemon store over vsock directly. Is this something that is supported? Explain the scenario | 09:47:07 |
 Molly | following up on this – i didn't explain myself particularly well in my first message, but i'm referencing this PR on the nix-community flake-compat: https://github.com/nix-community/flake-compat/pull/4.
the problem statement: i'm importing the flake in https://github.com/cachix/nixpkgs-python into my configuration using flake-compat because i need a python 3.7 interpreter for dealing with some appliances at work. the nixpkgs-python flake has its own pin of nixpkgs, and importing the flake will cause a copy of this pinned nixpkgs to be downloaded and evaluated. what i'd like to be able to do is externally override this input in the nixpkgs-python flake to use the copy of nixpkgs which i use to build the rest of the configuration on my work machine (to cut down on the eval time and number of nixpkgs copies sitting in my store). | 10:47:05 |
| Molly | currently i have flake-compat pinned in my configuration to the commit from that PR, but i thought i might as well ask about it in here in case there's interest in similar functionality in the lix flake-compat | 10:48:19 |
| raitobezarius | hmmmmmmmmmm, that sounds like a cool idea imho | 15:29:18 |
| raitobezarius | Molly would you open an issue in lix's flakes-compat with that feature and provide your design, etc.? | 15:29:55 |
| raitobezarius | this way, jade & co. can take care of it and say they would accept a PR for it | 15:30:02 |
| Molly | i can't really offer any suggestions for design other than point at the other PR, but sure, i can open an issue for the feature | 15:31:01 |
| Molly | done | 16:00:28 |
| raitobezarius | thank you! | 16:41:17 |
| 11 Jul 2025 |
 Emma [it/its] | what in hell is going on here? | 10:45:24 |
| Emma [it/its] | 
Download clipboard.png | 10:45:26 |
| Emma [it/its] | i was not expecting to see lix using 9GB of RAM to do a nix run nixpkgs#gittyup | 10:45:46 |
| Emma [it/its] | nix (Lix, like Nix) 2.91.1 | 10:47:04 |
 K900 | Try latest? | 10:47:37 |
| Emma [it/its] | ah, seems it was actually running gittyup but didnt rename the executable according to btop | 10:47:46 |
| Emma [it/its] | [2247546.742048] Out of memory: Killed process 3334734 (.gittyup-wrappe) total-vm:39094832kB, anon-rss:7048740kB, file-rss:596kB, shmem-rss:0kB, UID:1000 pgtables:72920kB oom_score_adj:0 | 10:48:08 |
| Emma [it/its] | not a lix issue, just weird btop behavior compounded with gittyup for some reason very much disliking this repo im working in | 10:50:05 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @emma:rory.gay
i was not expecting to see lix using 9GB of RAM to do a nix run nixpkgs#gittyup sounds like just average nixpkgs behavior | 13:54:12 |
 emily | 9 GiB for eval of a package and not a NixOS system configuration? sounds excessive. | 14:04:55 |
| emily | (and seemingly not what was going on thankfully) | 14:05:07 |
| Emma [it/its] | yeah it wasnt a nixpkgs issue apparently | 14:33:36 |
| Emma [it/its] | jut weird exec behavior | 14:33:46 |
 aloisw | The process name should change on exec, but some system monitors don't notice because they cache it to speed things up. | 15:49:09 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
9 GiB for eval of a package and not a NixOS system configuration? sounds excessive. new CLI feels like it's doing a lot of unnecessary nixpkgs evals | 18:09:45 |
| emily | for nix run? that would surprise me | 18:11:07 |
| raitobezarius | it's just my own bias towards new CLI | 18:13:25 |
|  Eder Sosa joined the room. | 20:13:34 |
