| 12 Oct 2025 |
 KFears (burnt out) | Besides, my disagreements aren't very large | 21:00:39 |
 piegames | In reply to @kfears:matrix.org
Yeah, it's a 4chan-ism about lame alt-rights who are pathetic and complain how the west has fallen and stuff Interesting that they use it ironically for themselves | 21:01:21 |
| piegames | Anyways, this is kinda off-topic, unfortunately our off-topic room is still in a weird quantum state so unclear how to proceed | 21:01:58 |
| KFears (burnt out) | In reply to @piegames:flausch.social
Interesting that they use it ironically for themselves No way. Isn't it derogatory? | 21:02:37 |
| piegames | Oh they don't? Maybe I'm just confused | 21:04:07 |
| KFears (burnt out) | Idk lol maybe they do, who knows | 21:04:38 |
 K900 | I haven't seen it used by 4chan people | 21:09:34 |
| K900 | It's mostly used by leftists as an insult for 4chan people I think | 21:09:45 |
 Emma [it/its] | ironically, i usually see it used by 4chan-adjacent right wing communities | 21:10:03 |
 Charles | this is primarily how i see it used as well | 21:11:07 |
| 13 Oct 2025 |
|  @louis2747:matrix.org left the room. | 00:52:17 |
|  Rcat 🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ changed their profile picture. | 06:02:28 |
 raitobezarius | I looked and I think I really need to be able to reproduce it on my local system | 09:16:31 |
| raitobezarius | Reading the strace, I'm not sure I see anything that the Nix interpreter is doing wrong | 09:16:39 |
| raitobezarius | It smells more like a nixpkgs level problem | 09:16:48 |
| raitobezarius | If I could build this chorus-nextest derivation, that would be helpful | 09:17:37 |
 MangoIV | flake inputs like inputs.foo.url = "path:./foo" locked with upstream cpp nix throw an error
error: lock file contains mutable lock '{"path":"./foo","type":"path"}' on lix. This cannot be reproduced with upstream cpp nix.
Should I report this as a bug?
| 09:50:06 |
| raitobezarius | not sure, this seems like a mutable lock to me | 09:53:25 |
| MangoIV | and? | 09:53:33 |
| raitobezarius | if cppnix accepts mutable locks now, it probably needs to explain why? | 09:53:51 |
| K900 | IMO cppnix allowing this was a terrible idea | 09:53:57 |
| raitobezarius | i have zero context behind why it was disallowed and now allowed again | 09:54:17 |
| MangoIV | is there a workaround for lix to allow mutable locks? Shouldn't passing --impure allow them? | 09:54:30 |
| raitobezarius | but for us to consider it as a change that we should do as well (not a bug), we would need the rationale context | 09:54:31 |
| raitobezarius | the node needs to be locked | 09:54:48 |
| raitobezarius | for a path to be locked, it needs to have its content hash serialized in the flake lock | 09:55:23 |
| raitobezarius | if flakes are now "everything is hermetic except for this little exception here, that little exception there and so on", i'm not sure i understand what is the value of it anymore :) | 09:55:55 |
| MangoIV | so it is a bug in upstream nix, in that it doesn't lock it properly? | 09:56:26 |
| raitobezarius | i don't know if this is a bug upstream or if they decided to change the behavior knowingly | 09:56:46 |
| raitobezarius | * i don't know if this is a bug in cppnix or if they decided to change the behavior knowingly | 09:56:53 |
