| 21 Oct 2025 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | the bad webkitgtk was properly removed a few days ago, qt5 webkit needs to follow soon :P | 10:26:49 |
 K900 | qt5webkit has been marked insecure for ages now | 10:27:03 |
| K900 | It's probably yeetable tbh | 10:27:07 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | webkitgtk was marked insecure too due to libsoup2 | 10:27:23 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | * webkitgtk_4_0 was marked insecure too due to libsoup2 | 10:27:33 |
| K900 | Honestly if you want to yeet it be my guest | 10:27:51 |
| K900 | I'm not sure we want to yeet qtwebengine5 yet but qtwebkit can go | 10:28:05 |
| K900 | Actually never mind it doesn't even rebuild those | 10:46:17 |
| K900 | I'll just merge and let CUDA people scream at me later if they want | 10:46:25 |
 hexa | was removed in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/450065 | 11:43:29 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | i know, i approved that PR and would have merged that same day if jan didn't self-merge faster | 11:44:06 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | * i know, i approved that PR and would have merged that same day if jan hadn't self-merged | 11:44:19 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | my point was, both was marked insecure, qtwebkit even for longer, so we should also remove both | 11:45:16 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | with the webkitgtk_4_0 the argument was backports of newer webkitgtk ABI during the 25.11 release cycle, but for qtwebkit there isn't any updates at all anymore. So it needs to go. | 11:46:07 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | If only we had a good deprecation/removal process... | 11:46:53 |
| K900 | For real though if anyone wants to yeet qtwebkit be my guest | 11:56:40 |
| K900 | The only reason I haven't done it yet is spoons | 11:56:46 |
 dramforever | workaround idea for the systemd static nodes thing, might be too cursed: just modprobe all the static nodes on boot | 12:22:21 |
| dramforever | wait this is technically not a staging matter anymore | 12:22:40 |
 emily | are there any channel blockers that need someone looking at them right now? | 23:58:08 |
| 22 Oct 2025 |
| emily | I see https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/454260 on the status page but not clear to me what it's waiting on | 00:16:37 |
 prince213 | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/454422 | 02:32:56 |
| prince213 | Need some review on this CVE fix | 02:33:01 |
 Vladimír Čunát | This is unresolved so far, too
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/453603#issuecomment-3426233438 | 05:20:30 |
 ElvishJerricco | oh crap, I didn't see that comment | 05:23:09 |
| dramforever | oh, yeah that's why i was asking again about whether we want to work around this... | 05:23:51 |
| Vladimír Čunát | And this one is a channel blocker:
https://hydra.nixos.org/build/309828960#tabs-buildsteps | 05:26:19 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Also nixpkgs-unstable is blocked by an unrelated merge that happened before merging staging-next
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/452844#issuecomment-3425510646 | 05:28:27 |
| ElvishJerricco | I can't really think of a good way to workaround this. Just loading all modules in kmod static-nodes is really excessive, since we only need to fix the nodes that would get uaccess. And patching systemd.package seems...... not great | 05:32:56 |
| Vladimír Čunát | So do that filename replacement in those roughly 10 .nix files? | 05:35:58 |
