| 21 Aug 2023 |
 raboof | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
Hey @raboof, I don't have an account on the git host, but I believe this
https://codeberg.org/raboof/nix-reproducible-builds-report/src/commit/35798090910a36bf504bd1e6778d69f0f54e5a37/src/report/mod.rs#L58
(and other strings nearby)
should use <pre> instead of <code>.
The stylesheet makes pre scrollable on horizontal overflow, and code fixed, leading to weird layout on mobile.
All of the static html uses pre instead of code.
I did some tweaks in https://reproducible.nixos.org/nixos-iso-minimal-r13y/ - better but still not amazing on mobile. happy to take patches, creating a codeberg account should be simple and otherwise I'm happy to apply them for you :) | 21:47:09 |
|  daxvena removed their profile picture. | 23:41:42 |
| daxvena set a profile picture. | 23:42:30 |
| 22 Aug 2023 |
 tea | In reply to @raboof:matrix.org
I did some tweaks in https://reproducible.nixos.org/nixos-iso-minimal-r13y/ - better but still not amazing on mobile. happy to take patches, creating a codeberg account should be simple and otherwise I'm happy to apply them for you :) Ok, I might send in patches like the good old days | 05:47:08 |
| tea | Also how often does the CI run? It is on the 07-25 state still for me | 05:49:08 |
| raboof | In reply to @noob_tea:matrix.org
Also how often does the CI run? It is on the 07-25 state still for me Currently still manual. I only updated minimal-r13y | 06:22:37 |
| 23 Aug 2023 |
|  @solidrhino:matrix.org set a profile picture. | 06:59:35 |
| 24 Aug 2023 |
|  @ironbound:hackerspace.pl joined the room. | 11:29:13 |
|  @rimuru:gentoo.chat changed their profile picture. | 19:01:58 |
| 25 Aug 2023 |
| raboof | It's so sad the NAR format doesn't preserve timestamps, so SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is usually meaningless (i.e. https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/112595). I wonder if it would make sense to introduce a convention where fetchers that can reliably determine the source date could store that somewhere - like in a /SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH file. set-source-date-epoch-to-latest.sh could then pick that up. Is that a crazy idea? | 08:14:02 |
 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 |
