| 24 May 2026 |
 emily | how long ago was the last 25.11 cycle? | 18:10:54 |
| emily | I'd sort of guess that if we do 25.11 it's the last cycle it'll get. conversely I'd guess that if we don't do 25.11 its last cycle will land security updates post-EOL. just a hunch though | 18:11:26 |
 hexa | May 5th 😯 | 18:11:38 |
| emily | so about 2,000 CVEs ago | 18:11:51 |
| hexa | Yeah +/- 1500 | 18:12:13 |
 VladimÃr ÄŒunát | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Theoretically we could do 26.05 and then merge the same set of commits to master. They were almost all cherry-picks. Or this after 25.11 cycle. | 18:20:26 |
| emily | that would mean including x86_64-darwin for that cycle I suppose? | 18:20:56 |
| VladimÃr ÄŒunát | I guess. | 18:21:45 |
| emily | well, can't skip it on 26.05 😅 | 18:22:35 |
| emily | we seem to end up reliably doing those hybrid cycles lately; | 18:22:49 |
| emily | * we seem to end up reliably doing those hybrid cycles lately… | 18:22:51 |
| VladimÃr ÄŒunát | I took a liking to the associated savings. | 18:25:57 |
 matthewcroughan | ┃ error: build of resolved derivation '/nix/store/afvbgibsc9hqg244db0g4nh1av0sjnmk-914871b20a901e3e1e981c92bc42b1c93b7ab81b.patch.drv' failed
┃ error: hash mismatch in fixed-output derivation '/nix/store/afvbgibsc9hqg244db0g4nh1av0sjnmk-914871b20a901e3e1e981c92bc42b1c93b7ab81b.patch.drv':
┃ specified: sha256-UsLE14P50Ell0xo3PESk5tIHH2HLalsaWiEubO9KdPE=
┃ got: sha256-6hqu5npSUN8I7XLZRiCl+b60Sweb1n2ZZz5LroIzkvA=
| 22:44:31 |
| matthewcroughan | ANyone been getting this? | 22:44:33 |
| matthewcroughan | for a patch to fuse | 22:44:46 |
| matthewcroughan | * Anyone been getting this? | 22:44:49 |
 r-burns | Confirmed, looks like this broke in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/516786, rebasing onto master (and applying the patch unconditionally, since it's gated on aarch64) reveals the same mismatch for me. I think that patch should be unconditional anyway, would avoid this issue for future bumps that aren't tested on aarch64. | 23:00:21 |
 ElvishJerricco | I guess that patch got struck by the full_index thing? | 23:25:29 |
| ElvishJerricco | or is that fetchpatch2? | 23:25:41 |
| ElvishJerricco | (that's fetchpatch2) | 23:28:09 |
| ElvishJerricco | so I don't understand how they did update the hash but got the wrong one | 23:28:53 |
| r-burns | Ah, I think that is ordinary fetchpatch, so maybe it is just a full_index thing. | 23:30:57 |
| ElvishJerricco | no like fetchpatch2 is the one where using full_index matters | 23:32:26 |
| ElvishJerricco | fetchpatch removes that stuff | 23:32:38 |
| 25 May 2026 |
| VladimÃr ÄŒunát | New staging-next-25.11, I guess:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/524014 | 13:20:47 |
| hexa | it's not a guess if you are already doing :p | 13:53:47 |
| 26 May 2026 |
|  phanirithvij changed their display name from loudgolem to phanirithvij. | 11:40:44 |
|  Myria joined the room. | 13:07:57 |
 Ramses 🇵🇸 | When backporting a PR that rebuilds all nixos tests but not many other packages, and so was merged into staging-nixos, should I backport this to the stable release branch (like we merged to master before we had staging-nixos), or to the stable staging branch? | 20:59:00 |
| VladimÃr ÄŒunát | In the workflow so far, I'd say stable but coordinate with kernel updates. | 21:01:33 |
