| 15 Mar 2026 |
|  NixOS Moderation Bot banned  @jykrwn_bot:matrix.org (disagreement). | 20:28:03 |
|  isabel changed their profile picture. | 20:57:15 |
| 19 Mar 2026 |
|  Miles Dyson set a profile picture. | 18:05:44 |
| 20 Mar 2026 |
|  @keiichi:matrix.org left the room. | 02:08:52 |
| 27 Mar 2026 |
|  smoothie_one joined the room. | 13:06:32 |
|  Sapii joined the room. | 22:49:00 |
| 1 Apr 2026 |
|  Azad Satkarni changed their display name from 7karni to Azad Satkarni. | 06:40:39 |
|  leona joined the room. | 11:39:04 |
| 8 Apr 2026 |
|  JamieMagee set a profile picture. | 03:42:50 |
| 12 Apr 2026 |
| leona changed their profile picture. | 12:15:36 |
| 13 Apr 2026 |
|  Alesya changed their display name from Alesya Huzik to Alesya. | 01:47:10 |
| 17 Apr 2026 |
|  dish [Fox/It/She] changed their profile picture. | 16:58:37 |
| 18 Apr 2026 |
|  voxel ⚡️ joined the room. | 16:54:10 |
| 19 Apr 2026 |
|  Lukas joined the room. | 02:20:08 |
| 20 Apr 2026 |
|  picnoir changed their display name from Picnoir to picnoir. | 10:07:13 |
| 21 Apr 2026 |
|  manueljacob joined the room. | 18:28:09 |
| 22 Apr 2026 |
| manueljacob | Hi! Which settings do I have to set to get stable source paths in debug information? The debug information grabbed from cache.nixos.org has paths starting with /build/ while anything built locally has paths starting with e.g. /nix/var/nix/builds/nix-1361222-3717692701. | 00:23:25 |
| manueljacob | The problem was that nix silently ignored the sandbox = true setting. | 10:27:50 |
 raboof | That sounds surprising indeed. Are you on NixOS or another distro? How did you set it? | 11:13:58 |
| manueljacob | I’m running in a Docker container. I manually set to sandbox = true in nix.conf. When passing --privileged to podman (Docker clone) in addition to that, it worked. | 14:58:42 |
| manueljacob | This probably should be a warning instead of debug print: https://github.com/NixOS/nix/blob/cd16aee6c1343f1b1e48f6506f7c99327a2352bc/src/libstore/unix/build/derivation-builder.cc#L2132 | 15:03:59 |
| raboof | yeah that'd make sense to me | 15:04:47 |
| manueljacob | Better even, the default should be to use it if possible. If it is explicitly requested but it is not possible, it should be an error. | 15:10:09 |
| manueljacob | To get on-topic again... Is there an easy way to find regressing formerly reproducible builds? | 15:11:33 |
| manueljacob | E.g., when making a change to binutils, how can I check whether it broke reproducibility of some package? | 15:12:12 |
| raboof | Interesting question. I don't think we have an easy answer because we don't even have a full definition of "the same package" across changes, nor of "binutils and its dependendees" ;) . But doing a reproduciblity report for 'binutils and its referrers in nixpkgs' for two sets and comparing the results probably should get you close. Might be neat to set up a local instance of https://github.com/nix-community/lila for the reporting. expect a bit of a project, though. this would be valuable to document once you figure it out though! | 15:31:15 |
| manueljacob | Well, that would probably build 10s of thousands of packages. What would be a suitable set of packages to build? | 15:55:01 |
| manueljacob | Ideally, the re-build with changed binutils should rebuild only packages that were shown to be reproducible. | 15:55:37 |
| manueljacob | (shown to be reproducible before the binutils change) | 15:58:30 |
| raboof | That's ideally still most of them though 😊. I like to take 'the graphical installation iso' as testset (and that should be easy enough to prune to only things that depended on binutils), but that's still pretty arbitrary. Maybe nixpkgs-small? (not sure what's in that) | 16:21:55 |
