| 25 Aug 2023 |
 atemu12 | raboof: Sounds sane to me | 08:36:31 |
| atemu12 | nix-support/ already exists as a convention for example | 08:37:05 |
 raboof | ah, of course, so perhaps even nix-support/SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH | 08:37:58 |
| atemu12 | Problem is, intrsducing that now would require a change in all FOD hashes | 08:49:03 |
| atemu12 | An idea that popped to my head just now would be a non-FOD additional output which is a file that contains the unix timestamp | 08:50:53 |
| atemu12 | Stdenv could read that out | 08:51:23 |
| atemu12 | Not sure that's possible thougk | 08:51:59 |
| atemu12 | * Not sure that's possible though | 08:56:19 |
| raboof | maybe we should make it opt-in for now, so it's up to whoever enables the feature to update the FOD hash... or perhaps even cuter: produce it by default only if the source date is after 1-1-2024 (for the fetchers implemented in nixpkgs at least)? | 08:57:33 |
| atemu12 | raboof: Hah, that's an interesting idea | 08:59:20 |
| atemu12 | Won't work for software that doesn't really receive updates anymore though | 09:00:11 |
| raboof | true, but they won't break, they'll just stay as broken as they already were :) | 09:00:59 |
 Julien | Hello | 09:30:02 |
| Julien | I am having trouble trying to check for reproducibility of a package while using remote builders | 09:30:21 |
| Julien | I want to check for the reproducibility of a lot of derivations and a would like the builds to be performed on remote machines | 09:30:52 |
| Julien | So far it seems to me that Nix is not allowing to do that: if I do nix-build --check it will build locally and if I do nix-build --check --max-jobs 0 it will use my remote builders but do not tell me anything about the reproducibility of the derivation. I suppose some of you here may have tried to distribute the jobs of checking for the reproducibility of a lot of derivations, do you have any feedback on this kind of question ? | 09:32:34 |
| Julien | I think my ideal workflow would be that the remote builder does the build step and then the coordinating nix daemon could do the comparison, but it looks like it is not working this way. | 09:34:13 |
| raboof | That sounds reasonable to me - I've never tried checking reproducibility using remote builders myself | 12:37:35 |
|  @rimuru:gentoo.chat changed their display name from rimuru to rimuru (moved to @kaya:catnip.ee). | 22:00:22 |
| @rimuru:gentoo.chat left the room. | 22:27:24 |
| 26 Aug 2023 |
|  @henrytill:matrix.org joined the room. | 23:18:19 |
| 27 Aug 2023 |
|  @uuuvn:dendrite.fail changed their display name from uuuvn to uuuvn 📎. | 15:31:17 |
|  lord_fomo joined the room. | 21:21:00 |
| 28 Aug 2023 |
 @trofi:matrix.org | I usually do Content Addressed build with a non-material change in stdenv to see if both machines produce the same hashes for larger build trees :) | 06:40:27 |
| Julien | Interesting trick, thanks | 06:42:13 |
| 30 Aug 2023 |
 j-k | https://go.dev/blog/rebuild | 08:17:25 |
| 31 Aug 2023 |
|  henrirosten joined the room. | 06:05:06 |
|  IndustrialRobot changed their display name from IndustrialRobot (she/her) to IndustrialRobot. | 10:50:52 |
|  moritz.hedtke removed their display name moritz.hedtke. | 16:13:19 |
|  Philip Taron (UTC-8) joined the room. | 21:46:27 |
