| 18 Mar 2025 |
 laauurraa | Fair enough, that makes sense | 14:36:34 |
| laauurraa | I'll downgrade to stable then, I can always specify that I want a specific package from unstable if it's important | 14:37:00 |
 elikoga | Nevermind, it shouldn't:
It's already reported https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/389978
And solved https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/390243
Which is already in master | 14:39:31 |
| laauurraa | Fair enough, thanks for your help | 14:40:40 |
| laauurraa | I successfully downgraded to 24.11 stable :)
Despite the weird edge cases sometimes, Nix really does have the amazing benefit of being incredibly easy to control | 15:41:07 |
| laauurraa | * I successfully downgraded to 24.11 stable :)
Despite the weird edge cases sometimes, Nix really does have the amazing benefit of being incredibly easy to control in this manner | 15:41:09 |
| laauurraa | and zotero launches now :D | 15:41:14 |
 emily | FWIW, already fixed in master means it should work on unstable in a few days | 15:45:25 |
| emily | also, I think running unstable is fine. packages will break more often, but it gets automated testing before every bump and stable doesn't get that much maintenance | 15:45:56 |
| emily | as in, I think the warning is a little overblown. many people do run unstable exclusively, me included | 15:46:19 |
| emily | it's a matter of what you prefer, of course (stale packages vs. packages having issues more often), but it's closer to the Arch rolling-release end of things than running Debian experimental or whatever | 15:46:53 |
| laauurraa | What makes it so that zotero not being runnable on NixOS wasn't caught by CI? Because I thought the same thing as you're saying now, that nixos-unstable is tested as it is updated | 15:47:53 |
| laauurraa | I thought running the software you attempt to build would be the minimal test, right? Or is that just different per-package? | 15:48:15 |
| elikoga | The minimal test is wether the package builds at all
Running is not trivial. Zotero for example expects a graphical environment(?) | 15:48:54 |
| emily | only a subset of things block the channel from advancing | 15:49:04 |
| emily | if all failed builds stopped unstable from bumping, it'd never bump | 15:49:12 |
| emily | but we do have e.g. automated end-to-end testing of installations, common graphical environments, etc. | 15:49:24 |
| laauurraa | Yeah it does elikoga, that's what I expected. Being a bit difficult to test whether it launches or not | 15:49:28 |
| emily | (since we have ~100k builds and many of them are always broken 🫠) | 15:50:18 |
| laauurraa | I wish it was a little bit clearer when a package is stable or not? | 15:50:37 |
| laauurraa | Would it be possible to add something to the nixpkgs search interface to link or show like a red/yellow/green bubble per platform about how "stable" it is? Whether builds have errors etc? | 15:52:40 |
| laauurraa | That would be useful | 15:52:46 |
| laauurraa | Or even just a link to the relevant page in hydra would already be helpful | 15:53:18 |
| 19 Mar 2025 |
|  @jkxyz:matrix.org left the room. | 16:17:32 |
| 20 Mar 2025 |
|  @xsrp:matrix.org joined the room. | 03:15:29 |
| @xsrp:matrix.org changed their display name from Seraphim Pardee to srp. | 03:19:04 |
| elikoga | In reply to @laauurraa:matrix.org
Would it be possible to add something to the nixpkgs search interface to link or show like a red/yellow/green bubble per platform about how "stable" it is? Whether builds have errors etc? Nobody built it yet, so it's not there | 11:39:34 |
| elikoga | * Nobody built that integration yet, so it's not there | 11:39:47 |
| elikoga | I don't believe that it's trivial to link the different projects without pulling your hair out in frustration | 11:41:06 |
|  distrostu (Jono) joined the room. | 16:20:06 |
