| 29 Nov 2025 |
 hab25 | Thanks, that makes sense | 16:58:57 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | like, i can run firefox from stable 25.05 on unstable, but it doesn't have hardware accel. It is to be expected the other way round breaks similarly. I wouldn't call that stable and production ready. | 16:59:03 |
 K900 | I would add that the "stable base + unstable packages" setup would still have to be maintained | 16:59:33 |
| K900 | If we want it to be a thing we recommend to people | 16:59:39 |
| K900 | So there would need to be testing of it, etc, and at this point you've just reinvented the stable branch but more pain | 17:00:00 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | this, and drawing a line becomes incredibly hard. | 17:00:07 |
| hab25 | I learned a lot, thank you all | 17:01:28 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | Like, is muttersomething you'd pull from unstable? it has only 25 reverse dependencies. But you can't update mutter without updating glib, and glib is a mass rebuild. Would glib be from stable? Would that mean mutter needs to come from stable too? | 17:01:37 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | it just doesn't work | 17:01:42 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | i'd be on board with renaming unstable -> rolling, but thats about it. | 17:02:46 |
| hab25 | I'm thinking I'll prefer nixos-unstable then. I expect it won't cause me too much trouble given properly-locked nix makes things so easy to rollback | 17:05:04 |
 hexa | so staging -> stumbling -> rolling | 17:05:19 |
| hexa | * so staging -> stumbling -> rolling | 17:05:23 |
| K900 | Generally I'd argue that nixos-unstable should be your "default choice" | 17:06:08 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | i wish we had humorous people calling channels that | 17:06:08 |
| K900 | And you should only run stable branches if you know exactly why you're doing that | 17:06:25 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | i'd argue it depends on whether you want to be confronted with all the breaks one at a time or all at once | 17:06:37 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | and obviously if you contribute, then you contribute the things you yourself want to use so you probably are on unstable (or even master) to get stuff faster | 17:07:28 |
| K900 | I strongly believe that people who say they want to be confronted with all the breaks at once actually mean they want to be confronted with all the breaks never | 17:07:37 |
| K900 | And that's only valid if you can dispose of the system after it runs out of support time | 17:08:04 |
| hexa | stable for me means I can automate deployments without checking in on things every other week | 17:08:26 |
| hexa | unstable for me means … watching out for curveballs that arrive via staging | 17:08:57 |
| hab25 | Damn, just realized I shouldn't do this right now because I use home-manager which has specific package version requirements. Therefore, if I use rolling versions for both nixpkgs and hm then I expect would they often become unsynced due to hm lagging behind in updating its modules.
I wish hm were part of nixpkgs =(.
| 17:17:19 |
| K900 | HM master is what you're supposed to be using with nixos-unstable | 17:19:10 |
| K900 | And it works fine pretty much always | 17:19:13 |
| hab25 | Hmm, considering it, again with the safety net of rollback... | 17:22:49 |
| hab25 | It's an easy problem for hm to solve actually, it just needs version assertions, e.g. if the following file had an assert pkgs.alacritty.version == "0.7" somewhere in it https://github.com/nix-community/home-manager/blob/780be8ef503a28939cf9dc7996b48ffb1a3e04c6/modules/programs/alacritty.nix#L14 | 17:24:10 |
| K900 | Applications generally don't break configuration formats that often | 17:25:08 |
| hab25 | * It's an easy problem for hm to solve actually, it just needs version assertions, e.g. if the following file had an assert pkgs.alacritty.version == "0.7" somewhere in it https://github.com/nix-community/home-manager/blob/780be8ef503a28939cf9dc7996b48ffb1a3e04c6/modules/programs/alacritty.nix | 17:26:10 |
| 7 Dec 2025 |
|  Robert Evans joined the room. | 18:46:40 |
