| 23 Jul 2025 |
 emily | we could condition based on the name | 18:06:12 |
| 25 Jul 2025 |
|  @federicodschonborn:matrix.org changed their display name from Wormy McWormface 🏳️🌈 (he/they) to Cat McFishface 🏳️🌈 (he/they). | 01:43:15 |
| 26 Jul 2025 |
|  oak 🏳️🌈♥️ changed their profile picture. | 08:28:46 |
 niklaskorz | @Toma I rebased + reran your treewide to resolve the merge conflicts, will also run nixpkgs-review for darwin and linux in a bit, but otherwise I think it’s good to go? | 08:46:24 |
| niklaskorz | oh great already new merge conflicts since I rebased 🫠 | 08:47:52 |
| niklaskorz | individual PRs removing useFetchCargoVendor by themselves makes this pretty hard | 08:50:23 |
| niklaskorz | I’d suggest anyone reading here to stop requesting PRs to remove it themselves, except for new packages of course | 08:50:47 |
 Toma | In reply to @niklaskorz:matrix.org
@Toma I rebased + reran your treewide to resolve the merge conflicts, will also run nixpkgs-review for darwin and linux in a bit, but otherwise I think it’s good to go? As discussed earlier, we were considering waiting until https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/423228 gets into stable so that we can do this treewide both on stable and master, to avoid much of the backporting issues.
Though, there hasn't been a staging-next-25.05 cycle since then...
So maybe we can deal with a few backporting conflicts until then.
idk, what do you think is better? | 09:27:40 |
| niklaskorz | my opinion: maintainers are already removing the attribute individually in master, meaning they already have to deal with the backporting conflicts, so I think having the treewide land now is the easier approach to at least have it consistent | 09:29:59 |
 Gaétan Lepage | Can someone from the Rust team (is that a thing?) ACK the PR? I don't feel like merging this beast myself. | 09:30:55 |
| emily | -next-25.05 is due soon | 09:31:19 |
| emily | like within next couple days l | 09:31:28 |
| emily | * | 09:31:34 |
| emily | there's a big security fix | 09:31:38 |
| emily | so if you can wait a week I'd wait a week | 09:31:44 |
| niklaskorz | I see, let’s add that in the treewide PR so it’s documented | 09:32:12 |
| emily | unless it's an emergency. did someone open a tracking issue to remove them all by hand? 😆 | 09:32:13 |
| niklaskorz | will add a comment | 09:32:17 |
| emily | the first time I saw someone nitpicking about a new package set the flag was when I realized we gotta make it warn | 09:32:56 |
| emily | * | 09:33:09 |
| emily | I mean FWIW I'm not strongly against merging into master now | 09:33:45 |
| emily | if people are super impatient about doing it manually | 09:33:55 |
| niklaskorz | hm yeah, if staging lands in a week that also means we’d only have to deal with backport conflicts for a week | 09:34:53 |
| emily | this is a collective action problem that could be solved by everyone choosing to just be chill about one useless variable in their packages :P | 09:35:39 |
| emily | but I remember how it was with the formatter so | 09:35:45 |
| niklaskorz | if us nixpkgs contributors can do one thing well, it’s not acting coordinated! | 09:36:40 |
| emily | In reply to @niklaskorz:matrix.org
I’d suggest anyone reading here to stop requesting PRs to remove it themselves, except for new packages of course FWIW I encourage you to push back very hard on this | 09:41:54 |
| emily | since this request is definitionally out of scope for any PR that isn't intended as a general cleanup and that doesn't add a new package | 09:42:25 |
| emily | I wish we would more proactively reject such requests as unreasonable and hide the comments | 09:42:50 |
| niklaskorz | I’m fine with either honestly, and have the according comment written and ready to submit on the treewide. So ultimately I’m leaving it to @Toma now whether I should press merge or press „submit review comment". | 09:44:45 |
