!RROtHmAaQIkiJzJZZE:nixos.org

NixOS Infrastructure

461 Members
Next Infra call: 2024-07-11, 18:00 CEST (UTC+2) | Infra operational issues backlog: https://github.com/orgs/NixOS/projects/52 | See #infra-alerts:nixos.org for real time alerts from Prometheus.142 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
16 Jun 2026
@me:linj.techlinjAnother quick question: why there is no aarhc64-linux packages in the nixpkgs-unstable channel blocker but there are in the nixos-unstable channel blocker?05:41:14
@me:linj.techlinj* Another quick question: why are there no aarch64-linux packages in the nixpkgs-unstable channel blocker? There are aarch64-linux packages in the nixos-unstable channel blocker.05:42:00
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát🤔 that seems weird to me.05:45:42
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátBut you're right: https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/unstable/unstable#tabs-constituents05:45:57
@me:linj.techlinj I find emacs has a weird relationship with channel blockers: emacs.x86_64-linux and emacs.aarch64-linux are blockers for nixos-unstable, but not for nixpkgs-unstable. I think it may be a good idea to make emacs a blocker for nixpkgs-unstable and then it will automatically become a blocker for nixos-unstable. But I end up finding that no aarch64-linux packages are blockers for nixpkgs-unstable... 05:46:49
@me:linj.techlinjThis is the PR adding aarch64-linux packages as nixos-unstable blocker: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/19360005:47:18
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát

then it will automatically become a blocker for nixos-unstable

This property is also very new.

05:47:33
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátThey were pretty random and independent.05:47:42
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátAs I wrote, this has been undermaintained.05:48:03
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátIt would be nice to organize it all better.05:48:13
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI'm certainly all for having aarch64-linux in nixpkgs-unstable.05:49:46
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát* I'm certainly all for having aarch64-linux in nixpkgs-unstable blockers.05:49:50
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI think it just got forgotten.05:50:00
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátOn a higher level, I suppose it can be confusing that -unstable channels are split differently than stable channels, too.05:51:39
@me:linj.techlinj absolutely! there is missing nixpkgs-26.05 and nixpkgs-unstable-darwin 05:57:32
@me:linj.techlinjimage.png
Download image.png
05:57:36
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI think the move of the nixpkgs blockers into nixpkgs only is pretty non-controversial. Also the enablement of aarch64-linux in there.06:01:04
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát linj: feel free to create a pull request for those, I'd say. 06:01:26
@me:linj.techlinj

move of the nixpkgs blockers into nixpkgs only

you mean nixos blockers into nixpkgs only, right?

06:03:40
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátAdding channels is a more careful thing, as it's user-facing and going back would be quite a breaking change. The current Hydra doesn't handle duplicate jobs too well either. Maybe that will improve soon with the new queue runner, though.06:03:40
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát Yes, I meant that the nixos blockers don't need the individual nixpkgs.* entries but only the whole nixpkgs.unstable. 06:04:27
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát (which requires filling nixpkgs.unstable with the extra jobs missing in there, I think) 06:04:52
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát * (which requires filling nixpkgs.unstable with the extra jobs missing in there, I think, including aarch64-linux) 06:05:10
@k900:0upti.meK900Killed both unstable-small evals12:08:50
@k900:0upti.meK900One just started12:08:55
@k900:0upti.meK900Will restart it in like 3 minutes once Plasma 6.7 is in12:09:05
@hexa:lossy.networkhexanew queue-runner testing tonight16:23:04
@hexa:lossy.networkhexafrom ~8 pm CEST probably16:23:22
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa cc vcunat 16:23:26
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaRedacted or Malformed Event16:23:52

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6