!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
22 Nov 2025
@k900:0upti.meK900 It's a fairly safe update usually 09:03:37
@k900:0upti.meK900And impact should not be big09:03:38
@k900:0upti.meK900 @vcunat took some cmake wrangling but it should be good now 09:42:58
@k900:0upti.meK900Rebuilds all of 14 things09:43:06
@k900:0upti.meK900Which I've verified locally09:43:10
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatRight, I saw in announcement that they changed defaults around qt5+6.09:44:21
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatstaging-next + staging-nixos merged to master.18:32:45
23 Nov 2025
@k900:0upti.meK900Can we squeeze in Qt 6.10.1?15:52:53
@k900:0upti.meK900It's a little over the normal staging threshold15:52:58
@k900:0upti.meK900But has some nice fixes and I don't want to build it twice for 25.11 and unstable15:53:12
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI also still have a protobuf situation, I think 🫠15:55:12
@hexa:lossy.networkhexathe squashing of protobuf versions didn't happen after all as I hoped15:55:39
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat

We plan to do branchoff tomorrow or Tuesday evening (CET).

15:55:46
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa* the squashing of protobuf versions didn't happen after all as I hoped it would15:55:50
@hexa:lossy.networkhexais staging-25.05 next?15:56:34
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatIf we need something for the 25.11 release, I'd say that takes priority.15:57:30
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunatBut yes, otherwise I thought of 25.05.15:57:39
@k900:0upti.meK900Protobuf will be a significant rebuild15:58:01
@k900:0upti.meK900And will drag most of Qt along15:58:06
@k900:0upti.meK900So if we're doing that I'd like to have Qt as well15:58:12
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat python3.pkgs.protobuf might suffice, but that would still not be a minor rebuild. 16:01:03
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat * python3.pkgs.protobuf might suffice maybe, but that would still not be a minor rebuild. 16:01:07
@hexa:lossy.networkhexamaybe I can just revert system protobuf in openvino for now, then it will be small-ish16:01:54
@hexa:lossy.networkhexastill bisecting16:02:09
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa
e1ece2c5218fa3141ee7bef86f16710640c10d4c is the first bad commit
commit e1ece2c5218fa3141ee7bef86f16710640c10d4c (HEAD)
Author: Martin Weinelt <hexa@darmstadt.ccc.de>
Date:   Mon Nov 17 20:31:00 2025 +0100

    openvino: use system protobuf

 pkgs/by-name/op/openvino/package.nix | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
16:12:34
@hexa:lossy.networkhexa👏16:12:43
@vcunat:matrix.orgvcunat

No rebuild?

Rebuild: linux 4, darwin 0

16:13:33
@hexa:lossy.networkhexalittle to none, yeah16:16:17
@hexa:lossy.networkhexawill confirm this is sufficient now16:16:27
@hexa:lossy.networkhexaI still think the cause it that this mixes protobuf versions16:16:44

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6