| 15 Oct 2021 |
 j-k | It's to review how nix can solve supply chain security issues, specifically focused on comparing it against the SLSA framework requirements. It can also help us discuss suggestions to feed back to the SLSA framework for changes. Also it straddles Security and Reproducibility
https://matrix.to/#/#nix-slsa:matrix.org
And it's there so this channel doesn't get swamped | 11:43:50 |
| j-k | ok it finally sent... not sure why it was having issues | 11:44:17 |
|  Xe (xe/they) changed their profile picture. | 19:14:38 |
| 16 Oct 2021 |
 trofi | A bit of signal boost in hopes of getting a reviewer: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/140179 | 15:15:21 |
 baloo | could we imagine a more generic approach? | 21:37:53 |
| baloo | nevermind | 21:38:21 |
| baloo | no | 21:38:22 |
| baloo | actually, that could maybe work | 22:47:27 |
| baloo | what if ... when doCheck==true, we added a "tests" output | 22:47:44 |
| baloo | before running tests, we just install everything like we should, then we run the tests and if they run successfuly, touch the test output | 22:48:31 |
| baloo | derivation would fail if not every output is created | 22:48:46 |
| baloo | output derivation does not get extraneous references. | 22:49:52 |
| baloo | I don't know how dumb that is | 22:49:59 |
| baloo | https://github.com/baloo/nixpkgs/tree/baloo/stdenv%2Flate-checks | 23:53:27 |
| baloo | (untested) | 23:53:31 |
| 17 Oct 2021 |
| baloo | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/141933 | 00:42:53 |
| baloo | we don't even need the tests output | 01:08:24 |
| trofi | I don't know the invariants of the check phases. Are they forbidden to affect the final result? I can imagine a situation when result of test run would be useful to install. I assume it's not forbidden by nixpkgs's policy to create installable files in check phases (if such policy exists). I personally would not mind test bytecode to be installed if it were deterministic and it's what python ecosystem does. | 09:47:03 |
| baloo | that seems weird to me to rely on check phase to produce outputs, but I don't know | 20:07:42 |
| baloo | the suggestion to run that through an RFC first would make sense | 20:08:03 |
| baloo | but I have NO experience writing those | 20:08:12 |
 Alyssa Ross | RFCs are very slow. | 20:08:59 |
| baloo | anyhow that kind of change is deep, so I guess that's expected :x | 20:11:37 |
| 20 Oct 2021 |
|  phaer joined the room. | 21:01:07 |
| 21 Oct 2021 |
|  legendofmiracles joined the room. | 01:20:02 |
| 23 Oct 2021 |
 Artturin | has anyone tried getting rid of the dates in docbook2man?
─ gitweb.conf.5
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
'\" t
.\" Title: gitweb.conf
.\" Author: [FIXME: author] [see http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/author]
.\" Generator: DocBook XSL Stylesheets vsnapshot <http://docbook.sf.net/>
-.\" Date: 10/12/2021
+.\" Date: 08/16/2021
.\" Manual: Git Manual
-.\" Source: Git 2.33.1
+.\" Source: Git 2.33.0
.\" Language: English
.\"
-.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "10/12/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.1" "Git Manual"
+.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "08/16/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.0" "Git Manual"
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" * Define some portability stuff
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.\" http://bugs.debian.org/507673
.\" http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2009-02/msg00013.html
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 03:29:53 |
| Artturin | * has anyone tried getting rid of the dates in docbook2man?
─ gitweb.conf.5
@@ -1,17 +1,17 @@
'\" t
.\" Title: gitweb.conf
.\" Author: [FIXME: author] [see http://www.docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/author]
.\" Generator: DocBook XSL Stylesheets vsnapshot <http://docbook.sf.net/>
-.\" Date: 10/12/2021
+.\" Date: 08/16/2021
.\" Manual: Git Manual
-.\" Source: Git 2.33.1
+.\" Source: Git 2.33.0
.\" Language: English
.\"
-.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "10/12/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.1" "Git Manual"
+.TH "GITWEB\&.CONF" "5" "08/16/2021" "Git 2\&.33\&.0" "Git Manual"
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" * Define some portability stuff
.\" -----------------------------------------------------------------
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.\" http://bugs.debian.org/507673
.\" http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2009-02/msg00013.html
.\" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| 03:30:07 |
| baloo | not sure but, if that date comes from the release or the last time the source file has been touched it's fine | 03:38:27 |
| baloo | (it looks like you're checking differences between 2.33.0 and 2.33.1 | 03:38:48 |
| baloo | ) | 03:38:49 |
