!UNVBThoJtlIiVwiDjU:nixos.org

Staging

308 Members
Staging merges | Running staging cycles: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+head%3Astaging-next+head%3Astaging-next-25.05 | Review Reports: https://malob.github.io/nix-review-tools-reports/105 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
3 Oct 2025
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)we can't have it go EOL before 26-0609:11:53
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatI'm not aware of this being official/binary. The best I know is to glance at https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=heads09:15:21
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat I do think that at least the worst issues (e.g. significant security problems) will keep getting fixed on the 2.40 branch for at least another year. 09:18:44
@ma27:nicht-so.sexyma27

upstream patches "down" pretty far. last commit is from 2025-09-19 btw.

fwiw if that would've been a concern, I would've pushed harder (though my main issue is the dlopen()-breakage that can effectively induce ABI problems on both prebuilt stuff and even on source-builds from us).

while I'm confident that we're pretty good on the branch already, I wouldn't have a good feeling pushing this last-minute into new stable.

09:23:04
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatI think the problem with last-minute big updates is that 25.05 will get out of support in a couple months, so you wouldn't have any alternative in case of unexpected incompatibilities.09:24:37
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat(only the new glibc 2.42 in this case)09:25:12
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)but also, supporting too-different setups gets painful too09:25:48
@ma27:nicht-so.sexyma27

I'd argue that this doesn't really apply to glibc though: it's IMHO relatively slow moving, the painful parts around updates are

  • ABI incompatibility when wrongly mixing stable/unstable (inherently no way around that, we have to continue teaching people to be careful)
  • a lot of breakage around C-API changes (e.g. header changes, removal of deprecated APIs). usually requires patching in affected packages
  • hardening changes like the dlopen part

also, considering we skip gcc15-by-default, we're not really ready for C23 anyways.

09:29:31
@ma27:nicht-so.sexyma27(not sure if I misread what you were replying to though)09:29:40
@ma27:nicht-so.sexyma27 *

I'd argue that this doesn't really apply to glibc though: it's IMHO relatively slow moving, the painful parts around updates are

  • ABI incompatibility when wrongly mixing stable/unstable (inherently no way around that, we have to continue teaching people to be careful)
  • a lot of breakage around C-API changes (e.g. header changes, removal of deprecated APIs). usually requires patching in affected packages
  • hardening changes like the dlopen part (EDIT: essentially one or two deep rabbithole(s) for me per upgrade, but that's upgrade-pain not maintenance-pain after that IMHO)

also, considering we skip gcc15-by-default, we're not really ready for C23 anyways.

09:32:56
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat Honestly, I don't know what to do around the current staging-next. Apart from regressing roughly 9k jobs, several different channel blockers remain. (and I'm not aware of anyone working on these) 09:45:00
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatThousands of regressing jobs might be OK-ish. Though overall it makes me feel like cmake 4 might've been premature to adopt by us (but it's not like I suggest reverting at this point).09:46:22
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatI mean the pros/cons ratio.09:46:39
@k900:0upti.meK900 I think everyone who can really look at those is too busy trying to put out the fire 09:47:47
@k900:0upti.meK900 I know at least me and @emilazy:matrix.org are 09:47:57
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatSure, I know. Just trying, maybe someone else than typical contributors will appear 🤷09:49:58
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)wait how are things broken on x86_64-darwin but not aarch64-darwin?09:50:25
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat* Sure, I know. I'm just trying, maybe someone else than typical contributors will appear 🤷09:50:21
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all) how do you even build bootstrap tools? stdenv.bootstrapTools builds fine, but that is probably the wrong attr 09:55:51
@qyliss:fairydust.spaceAlyssa RossFrom release.nix I I think10:01:50
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all) Ah nix-build pkgs/top-level/release.nix --attr stdenvBootstrapTools.x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu seems to do things 10:03:59
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all) no guarantees, but i might learn something, so i'll give it a casual poke 10:04:19
@qyliss:fairydust.spaceAlyssa RossMust be bisectable at least10:05:11
@qyliss:fairydust.spaceAlyssa RossI just haven't had the time10:05:18
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)i can do the bisect10:08:13
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all) that at least isn't hard 10:08:24
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)just takes a while because waiting for gcc compiles10:08:49
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)so uh, i just got a gcc build fail on the way to bootstrap tools...10:27:26
@grimmauld:grapevine.grimmauld.deGrimmauld (any/all)
       > /nix/store/mr6bjhlhd966kl6f2wmggsan6mbs5bcj-bootstrap-stage3-stdenv-linux/setup: line 1801: pop_var_context: head of shell_variables not a function context
       > /nix/store/mr6bjhlhd966kl6f2wmggsan6mbs5bcj-bootstrap-stage3-stdenv-linux/setup: line 1: pop_var_context: head of shell_variables not a function context

whatever this is

10:28:05
@k900:0upti.meK900 That's a stupid stdenv bug, the real error should be above that 10:30:09

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6