| 28 Sep 2025 |
 hexa (signing key rotation when) | the implication is that -rocm flavored package attributes can be removed in favor of config.rocmSupport or foobar.override { rocmSupport = true; } | 14:24:35 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | * the implication is that -rocm flavored package attributes can be removed in favor of just toggling config.rocmSupport or foobar.override { rocmSupport = true; } | 14:24:44 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | * the implication is that -rocm flavored package attributes can be removed in favor of just toggling config.rocmSupport or foobar.override { rocmSupport = true; } | 14:24:53 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | so the idea is unstable-rocm, release-25.11-rocm | 14:25:09 |
 vcunat | Why will these be split away? Less build shares and/or frequency of evals? | 14:28:07 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | we can also integrate them in the main jobset 🤔 | 14:46:37 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | * we can also integrate them in the main jobset 🤔 i was just not sure how to accomplish that | 14:46:45 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | because we currently eval nixpkgs once with rocmSupport = false | 14:46:52 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | and they only have pkgsRocm and aliases with overrides that enable it | 14:47:25 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | https://github.com/LunNova/nixpkgs/blob/push-kuknstozqsvo/pkgs/top-level/release-rocm.nix | 14:48:37 |
| vcunat | Plug in pkgsRocm attribute-subtree? Probably by adding the reference in our pkgs/top-level/release.nix | 14:58:22 |
| vcunat | * Plug in this pkgsRocm attribute-subtree? Probably by adding the reference in our pkgs/top-level/release.nix | 14:58:29 |
| vcunat | I mean, if we don't plan to save build resources significantly compared to inclusion, I think it's better to keep the advantages of inclusion:
- eval and channel sync. (i.e. you'll only need to wait for channels and not also coordinate with an additional jobset)
- accounting this in rebuild estimates on GitHub PRs
| 15:03:12 |
| vcunat | Also visibility in regressions tackled during staging-next. | 15:03:47 |
 Lun | pkgsRocm is an entire nixpkgs | 15:03:54 |
| vcunat | OK, I assumed this pkgsRocm would be just the diff mentioned in
that list is too expensive to generate on every eval, but that is also not really required, it can gradually be adapted to what is needed
Because we don't want huge amount of duplicate jobs on Hydra (even if the hashes are the same in them).
| 15:05:29 |
| vcunat | * OK, I assumed this pkgsRocm would be just that diff mentioned in
that list is too expensive to generate on every eval, but that is also not really required, it can gradually be adapted to what is needed
Because we don't want huge amount of duplicate jobs on Hydra (even if the hashes are the same in them).
| 15:05:41 |
| vcunat | 🤔 anyway, that was just a quick thought. Maybe someone will have a better suggestion. | 15:06:51 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | recursing into pkgsRocm would duplicate eval time | 15:07:42 |
| hexa (signing key rotation when) | * recursing into pkgsRocm would double eval time | 15:08:04 |
| vcunat | I suspect we did have a tool for evaluating just a particular subset of attributes, but I'm not sure about efficiency. | 15:08:22 |
| vcunat | Essentially, I meant to take whatever you propose for a separate jobset and plug it in. The cost shouldn't differ significantly. | 15:09:16 |
 @7c6f434c:nitro.chat | Ask ROCm-interested people to maintain release-rocm.nix with things they care about (which can be sometimes linted locally, but no need to check completeness on every eval), then import it in the main release? | 15:12:56 |
| Lun | If I import release-rocm's jobs into release do I need to make sure all the names end up unique or it'll break? So if release-rocm.nix is making an "openmpi" job that needs to be something else to be valid to add in release.nix and not conflict with the default openmpi | 15:29:48 |
| Lun | https://github.com/LunNova/nixpkgs/blob/push-kuknstozqsvo/pkgs/top-level/release-rocm.nix is what I have as an attempt at a release-rocm.nix but I'm not clear on what importing it in the main release properly would look like | 15:42:20 |
| vcunat | I thought we'd nest it all under some name like rocmPackages to avoid name collisions. | 15:48:48 |
| vcunat | * I thought we'd nest it all under some name like pkgsRocm to avoid name collisions. | 15:49:45 |
| vcunat | pkgsRocm exists but doesn't generate jobs on Hydra. So ideally we'd reuse the attribute paths to reduce confusion? (but only put the chosen packages into it and not everything) | 15:52:43 |
 SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | Was the separate-jobset option already dismissed? | 16:59:25 |
| vcunat | I'm not against a separate jobset. But I haven't heard any advantage to gain from the separation. | 17:09:41 |
