| 7 Apr 2025 |
 Mic92 | we first need to make the github app public in nix-community | 15:36:32 |
| 8 Apr 2025 |
|  @ser:sergevictor.eu joined the room. | 10:15:16 |
|  @yuri:peori.space left the room. | 11:23:13 |
 Las | What parts do I need to look at to fully understand the hash modulo stuff? | 12:09:34 |
 Robert Hensing (roberth) | Definitely https://nix.dev/manual/nix/2.28/store/derivation/ and its sub-pages (see the menu, rendered as 4.4.*), as for code, maybe John Ericson has a hint? | 12:15:17 |
| Las |
But rather than somehow scanning all the other fields for inputs, Nix requires that all inputs be explicitly collected in the inputs field. It is instead the responsibility of the creator of a derivation (e.g. the evaluator) to ensure that every store object referenced in another field (e.g. referenced by store path) is included in this inputs field.
Isn't this not true Robert Hensing (roberth) ?
| 12:18:05 |
| Las | If I cat a .drv file it doesn't have explicit inputs | 12:18:27 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | Yeah, the fields aren't named, but one of those , separated parts is specifically for declaring inputs using DerivingPaths | 12:19:24 |
| Las | Say I want to output a CA derivation, something like echo hello > /1rz4g4znpzjwh1xymhjpm42vipw92pr73vdgl6xs1hycac8kf2n9,
to be used in a downstream dynamic derivation.
I don't think this is possible if the placeholder path is also /1rz4g4znpzjwh1xymhjpm42vipw92pr73vdgl6xs1hycac8kf2n9 for the derivation
producing the derivation, which seems to be plausible since it seems to be determined by the output name only from testing? | 12:30:10 |
| Las | I really think there needs to be a way to avoid using placeholder paths entirely. They're a code smell. | 12:30:36 |
| Las | The output path should always be at /outputs/<output name> IMO, even if placeholder paths are needed for self-references. | 12:31:28 |
| Las | or is the placeholder path not supposed to depend only on the output name, and I'm testing it wrong somehow? | 12:33:51 |
| @ser:sergevictor.eu left the room. | 13:22:49 |
 leona | It's uncool that https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/393359#issuecomment-2766317573 was just merged as additionally you said that you want to make 2.27 the new default and also that 2.28 has API breakages | 21:15:26 |
| leona | * It's uncool that https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/393359#issuecomment-2766317573 was just merged as additionally you said that you want to make 2.27 the new default for NixOS 25.05 and also that 2.28 has API breakages | 21:15:41 |
| leona | * It's not cool that https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/393359#issuecomment-2766317573 was just merged as additionally you said that you want to make 2.27 the new default for NixOS 25.05 and also that 2.28 has API breakages | 21:16:57 |
| leona | that's one of the trust issues things people have. tbh I don't really know what to do when these things change without any communication | 21:18:36 |
| leona | for me it's quite unclear how much breakage 2.28 is, but there was already some fallout in #infra:nixos.org so i'm not that confident. | 21:20:49 |
 emily | tbf the next comment did say 2.28 https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/393359#issuecomment-2767120782 | 21:20:51 |
| leona | I don't really see another comment actually mentioning "2.28 is the default" even though 2.28 was mentioned | 21:21:37 |
| emily | (I believe 2.28 is to address a bunch of awkward things about the way the Nix headers are organized that I reported when trying to use 2.26, but I do agree that the rush is scary) | 21:21:42 |
|  @bradlugo:matrix.org left the room. | 23:04:22 |
| 9 Apr 2025 |
 WeetHet | Wait I though it was decided to keep 2.24 as stable for 25.05 | 10:10:40 |
| WeetHet | * Wait I thought it was decided to keep 2.24 as stable for 25.05 | 10:10:45 |
| WeetHet | Why was this merged? https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/396442 | 10:11:10 |
| WeetHet | IMHO it's a very bad idea to bump stable nix version this close to release | 10:14:05 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | We've discussed this with the release managers and they agreed, conditioned on having a monolithic packaging instead of the split one, which will be for 2.29+ | 10:46:54 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | The release is still about 2 months out, and we'll be paying close attention to any issues that may arise | 10:47:53 |
| emily | (it seems like the release manager did not have the same understanding) | 10:48:37 |
| Robert Hensing (roberth) | 2.28 is a continuation of 2.27. The C++ headers are not considered a stable API, but despite that, we went out of our way to signal this change with a more significant version bump. Maybe we shouldn't have called it 2.28 because of that, but we made these changes to solve real problems downstream projects have when linking against Nix | 10:51:53 |
