| 24 May 2026 |
 Vladimír Čunát | 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 |
| Vladimír Čunát | 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 |
| Vladimír Čunát | 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 |
| Vladimír Čunát | In the workflow so far, I'd say stable but coordinate with kernel updates. | 21:01:33 |
| Vladimír Čunát | In future, perhaps https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/512923 | 21:02:11 |
| Ramses 🇵🇸 | Yeah, CI creates a blocking review saying that it should go to staging, but it feels like we'll be delaying such PRs by a lot in that case. So I guess I'm down to catching the next kernel release and pressing the merge button at the right time | 21:12:57 |
| 27 May 2026 |
| Vladimír Čunát | emily: does the x86_64-darwin drop need any mass rebuilds? Perhaps it will be easier to do directly on master? | 08:14:09 |
| Vladimír Čunát | (no waiting, no intertwining with mass-rebuild changes, etc.) | 08:14:40 |
|  @marienz:matrix.org left the room. | 08:28:38 |
|  isabel changed their profile picture. | 21:16:56 |
| 29 May 2026 |
|  julie changed their profile picture. | 23:19:18 |
