| 1 Nov 2024 |
 SigmaSquadron | * I've been trying to fix gnuk recently (has been failing to build for a while now), but i don't think there's time to add the new packages its newer versions require, so the PR I have prepped for it just overhauls the derivation to conform to recent standards and marks it as broken.
| 13:00:55 |
| SigmaSquadron | it requires picolibc which will probably be a mess of pkgsCross that I do not want to touch.
| 13:01:31 |
 Vladimír Čunát | New packages can be added to stable releases any time, e.g. 24.05 could still get them even. | 13:03:06 |
| Vladimír Čunát | * New packages can be added to stable releases any time, e.g. 24.05 could still get them even, at this moment. | 13:03:16 |
 Tristan Ross | In reply to @sigmasquadron:matrix.org
sooo, ZHF today? Yes | 14:13:12 |
| Tristan Ross | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/352882 | 14:34:56 |
 emily | you're missing the ñ! | 14:47:54 |
| Tristan Ross | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
you're missing the ñ! I can't type it with my JP IME lol | 14:50:47 |
 Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Is it okay to drop packages that we realistically cannot maintain and that have been EOL for a long time, with a large number of open CVEs and several mature compatible replacements? | 23:56:49 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | (I'm referring to OracleJDK in this specific case, but I made the question a tad more general. There is already consensus in #NixOS JVM that we can't realistically maintain that) | 23:58:12 |
| emily | it would be okay even if only one of those applied tbh | 23:58:23 |
| emily | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
We've never prevented removing packages at any time before a release either, fwi.w see discussion around here | 23:58:40 |
| 2 Nov 2024 |
|  hpfr joined the room. | 04:01:46 |
| SigmaSquadron | How recent must the latest upstream commit be for a package to be considered maintained? | 04:58:22 |
| SigmaSquadron | * How recent must the latest upstream commit be for a package to be considered maintained w.r.t not immediately dropping them as unmaintained during ZHF? | 04:58:46 |
| SigmaSquadron | I found a couple of broken packages that have been unmaintained for 6+ months | 05:00:17 |
| SigmaSquadron | * I found a couple of broken packages that have been unmodified for 6+ months, and another that has been last modified in October, but no longer builds in upstream's CI, nor in someone's Ubuntu install, nor in Hydra. | 05:03:14 |
 dish [Fox/It/She] | I'd say if they're not building in upstream's CI then it would be reasonable to drop it. If upstream can't maintain it, then we shouldn't try to either. If it was working in ours, I'd see no reason to drop, but since it doesn't, I'm in favor of dropping | 05:12:00 |
| emily | I would say it's not healthy if ZHF is the only thing keeping a package going | 05:15:44 |
| emily | i.e. if there's no expectation it won't just end up getting fixed again by someone else in a couple ZHFs time | 05:16:13 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I'd say it's possible to mark it as broken instead of dropping, if there's still hope that the package will soon revive. | 06:04:34 |
|  Youwen joined the room. | 07:17:05 |
 getpsyched | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
you're missing the ñ! That was partially removed IIRC | 17:34:00 |
| getpsyched | ah, here
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/318511 | 17:34:13 |
| emily | I think that that was agreed as a technical hack but not an actual change of the codename? 🤔 | 17:37:14 |
| emily | but maybe I'm wrong | 17:38:02 |
| emily | rl-2411.md still says Vicuña, so I think that's the official name | 17:38:23 |
| SigmaSquadron | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I think that that was agreed as a technical hack but not an actual change of the codename? 🤔 that is correct. The official name is Vicuña, and should be present wherever Unicode is available. | 18:18:30 |
| emily | can set up a compose key in one line of NixOS config, no excuses :) | 18:18:57 |
| SigmaSquadron | In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I think that that was agreed as a technical hack but not an actual change of the codename? 🤔 * that is correct. The official name is Vicuña, and should be present wherever Unicode is available.
Related: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/313733
| 18:22:23 |
