| 23 May 2023 |
 Vladimír Čunát | Yes. I mean, if noone wants to maintain a package, it will get dropped from the critical set. It's that easy. | 13:53:27 |
 raitobezarius | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Any idea where it's best to ask for a fix? Really, I'd say #NixOS Dev or pushing a issue while pining @NixOS/darwin-maintainers | 13:53:30 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Any idea where it's best to ask for a fix? * Really, I'd say #NixOS Dev or pushing a issue while pinging @NixOS/darwin-maintainers | 13:54:05 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Here we get hit by the weird differences between unstable and stable workflows. | 13:54:17 |
| Vladimír Čunát | (nixpkgs-unstable is not blocked by the package and we don't have another darwin-containing channel) | 13:55:06 |
| raitobezarius | Could we have a virtual nix-darwin-unstable somewhat? | 13:55:25 |
| raitobezarius | which would block à la stable while being unstable? | 13:55:37 |
 Alyssa Ross | isn't that nixpkgs-unstable? | 13:56:06 |
| Alyssa Ross | like, why do they test different packages? | 13:56:22 |
| Vladimír Čunát | https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/darwin-tested
vs.
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/unstable | 13:56:25 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Well, I don't know. I see Linux people using nixpkgs-unstable as well, especially with home-manager (it's the default I think). | 13:57:04 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I'm not aware of any reasons for the differences in release-critical packages. | 13:58:46 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I think this has been very ad-hoc so far. | 13:59:30 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Waiting for someone to really organize it. | 13:59:45 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I feel like there should be a Darwin Release Manager Yes, and we should bully them for caring about Darwin. | 14:01:17 |
| raitobezarius | I'm not for bullying in any cases :) — but I think a Darwin RM would be much more responsible than me towards Darwin | 14:01:46 |
| raitobezarius | * I'm not for bullying in any cases :) — but I think a Darwin RM would be much more responsible than (me or hexa? :D) towards Darwin | 14:01:51 |
| raitobezarius | I mean, I assume we only really use Linux | 14:02:01 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Well, not just RM. Darwin-specific issues happen all the time. | 14:03:18 |
| raitobezarius | Well, I think it's about incremental | 14:03:44 |
| raitobezarius | RM is less engaging and is impactful for our releases | 14:04:09 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I just dropped it from darwin-tested. | 14:05:11 |
| Vladimír Čunát | But it's all weird. | 14:05:18 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Like, there are only x86 packages in there. | 14:05:27 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I'm not for bullying in any cases :) — but I think a Darwin RM would be much more responsible than (me or hexa? :D) towards Darwin /s | 14:05:46 |
| Vladimír Čunát | So even if aarch64-darwin were completely broken, we would still get a channel bump. | 14:05:53 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Forcing exclusively Linux users to deal with messy Darwin stuff is just so incredibly frustrating. | 14:06:33 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | It'd be better to have someone that uses Darwin (thus means they care for Darwin) to deal with Darwin issues | 14:07:13 |
| Vladimír Čunát | @darwin-maintainers exist at least and can be pinged in such cases. | 14:07:47 |
| Vladimír Čunát | But I don't think it works that well in practice. | 14:07:58 |
