| 8 Apr 2025 |
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 |
Robert Hensing (roberth) | The only breakage is moving the location of the header files, so there's no behavioral change, and no risk to stability associated with that | 10:53:07 |