| 23 Nov 2024 |
 Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Don't forget to add it to stdenv! | 01:51:00 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
I recommend antHook or ant.hook, there is some desire to move away from implicit hooks in general Thinking about this more, this would also mean that we wouldn't need to put this PR into staging (we'd need to put the other refactors in there though), since the Ant package's closure is unchanged | 02:56:21 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Thus, it's also infinitely easier to review | 02:56:39 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Thus, it's also infinitely easier to review (rebuild a few packages vs all 800 dependencies) | 02:57:00 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Thus, it's also infinitely easier to review (rebuild a few packages vs all 800 dependencies), so I'll be unblocked faster | 02:58:38 |
 emily | sgtm | 02:58:51 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * Thus, it's also infinitely easier to review (rebuild a few select packages vs all 800 dependencies), so I'll be unblocked faster | 02:59:12 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | You're good at talking people out of bad design decisions :) | 03:00:11 |
| emily | sometimes I talk people into them just to shake it up 😈 | 03:00:39 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | To hardcode or not to hardcode the path to the Ant executable, that is the question | 03:04:03 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | * To hardcode or not to hardcode the path to the Ant executable in the hook, that is the question | 03:04:13 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Okay, refactored everything to use a separate ant.hook package, down to 6 commits (versus the 14 before) | 03:41:45 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Presumably rebuilds are under 20 now (being generous with the amount of indirect dependencies) | 03:44:30 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | vuze... needs some TLC, if it's even maintained upstream anymore | 04:02:32 |
| emily | it is not | 04:03:48 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | Oh wonderful, CVE with a 9.8 severity from 2018. Last time the package was updated was 2017 | 04:12:49 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | (CVE-2018-13417 for the curious) | 04:13:44 |
| emily | 🤪 | 04:16:59 |
| emily | time for the knownVulnerabilities + removal dance | 04:17:06 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | You know it! About to do the first movement, titled vuze: drop | 04:18:13 |
| emily | oh it's broken = true; | 04:31:00 |
| emily | not exactly security critical then | 04:31:19 |
| emily | Tomodachi94 (they/them): can you move the release note to 24.11 | 04:31:36 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | In reply to@emilazy:matrix.org
Tomodachi94 (they/them): can you move the release note to 24.11 Done | 04:35:32 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | And I take it we only need to do the knownVulns dance for 24.05? | 04:36:37 |
| emily | indeed | 04:36:51 |
| emily | though considering it's marked broken and doesn't even run… | 04:37:04 |
| emily | would be pretty impressive to find a way to hit yourself with that particular rake | 04:37:17 |
| Tomodachi94 (they/them) | It's not marked broken on 24.05. Whether it runs on that release or we simply forgot to backport the broken = true addition, I don't feel like finding out | 04:40:09 |
| emily | yeah just mark it | 04:40:54 |
