| 10 Jan 2026 |
 connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | okay well this absolutely sucked and took way too long: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/478619 | 03:26:56 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | good news is it helped me discover an issue with the refactor I was doing for jetpack-nixos: https://github.com/ConnorBaker/jetpack-nixos/commit/82d0eb506ad4a1791a1ba44781a64a48b819a54d | 03:30:13 |
 Gaétan Lepage | Sure, done: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/478681 | 09:54:12 |
| Gaétan Lepage | * Sure, done: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/478681
EDIT: merged by happysalada | 11:34:03 |
|  Gilles Poncelet joined the room. | 15:34:07 |
| connor (burnt/out) (UTC-8) | Suppose you’ve got a project where different object files are compiled with different versions of NVCC/GCC. Under what conditions can they be linked into shared objects?
As an example, assume you’ve got a project which builds with an older version of CUDA, and you’re using stdenv (not cudaPackages.backendStdenv). The CUDA portion of the build would produce object files using an older, NVCC-compatible GCC (by virtue of how we wrap NVCC so it always sees a compatible GCC), but the rest would produce object files using the GCC provided by stdenv. Linking happens with some combination of stdenv’s linker, the linker corresponding to the bintools (I think) of the GCC available to NVCC, and NVLink.
Under what conditions would linking succeed?
I ask because I remember trying to use multiple versions of LLVM-produced object files and getting something along the lines of a bitstream version mismatch, but I don’t remember if that was because I was using LTO or something else.
| 16:45:25 |
 SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | I'm pretty sure there are no compatibility guarantees, but idk under what conditions it might work by accident | 17:00:55 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | But this still fails early, no? | 17:04:11 |
| Gaétan Lepage | Yes, because this package is not available for cuda 12.8 | 19:46:18 |
| SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) | In reply to @glepage:matrix.org
Yes, because this package is not available for cuda 12.8 But this should not be an eval error, unless via meta.unsupported or meta.broken | 20:06:56 |
| 11 Jan 2026 |
|  ivan joined the room. | 01:55:43 |
| Gaétan Lepage | FYI, merged the onnx 1.20.1 update
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/478567 | 09:31:04 |
| 4 Aug 2022 |
|  Winter (she/her) joined the room. | 03:26:42 |
| Winter (she/her) | (hi, just came here to read + respond to this.) | 03:28:52 |
 tpw_rules | hey. i had previously sympathzied with samuela and like i said before had some of the same frustrations. i just edited my github comment to add "[CUDA] packages are universally complicated, fragile to package, and critical to daily operations. Nix being able to manage them is unbelievably helpful to those of us who work with them regularly, even if support is downgraded to only having an expectation of function on stable branches." | 03:29:14 |
| Winter (she/her) | In reply to @tpw_rules:matrix.org
i'm mildly peeved about a recent merging of something i maintain where i'm pretty sure the merger does not own the expensive hardware required to properly test the package. i don't think it broke anything but i was given precisely 45 minutes to see the notification before somebody merged it ugh, 45 minutes? that's... not great. not to air dirty laundry but did you do what samuela did in the wandb PR and at least say that that wasn't a great thing to do? (not sure how else to word that, you get what i mean) | 03:30:23 |
| tpw_rules | no, i haven't yet, but i probably will | 03:31:03 |
| Winter (she/her) | i admittedly did that with a PR once, i forget how long the maintainer was requested for but i merged it because multiple people reported it fixed the issue. the maintainer said "hey, don't do that" after and now i do think twice before merging. so it could help, is what i'm saying. | 03:31:50 |
| tpw_rules | i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the maintainer's part | 03:32:10 |
| Winter (she/her) | (it was also simple enough that it was fine and the maintainer said it looked good after) | 03:32:15 |
| tpw_rules | * i'm not sure what went wrong with the wandb PR anyway, i think it was just a boneheaded move on the merger's part | 03:32:19 |
| tpw_rules | but i thought most of the frustration was around packages which don't really involve CUDA breaking the fragile CUDA packages, and i'm not sure how the warning helps in this case. it's not like nixpkgs-review prints out the comments. maybe i'm wrong. but it is a legitimate problem | 03:34:19 |
| Winter (she/her) | the frustration that i see is that people are touching packages that he maintains, am i missing further context here? | 03:35:09 |
| tpw_rules | did you ever see this? https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixpkgss-current-development-workflow-is-not-sustainable/18741 | 03:35:43 |
| Winter (she/her) | oh yes i did | 03:35:49 |
| Winter (she/her) | but that's not what the topic of this PR/the notice is, though? | 03:36:11 |
| Winter (she/her) | this wouldn't help that | 03:36:14 |
| Winter (she/her) | ~~is that what you're saying and i'm just lagging behind~~ | 03:36:27 |
| tpw_rules | no it wouldn't, but it reads to me like that's the underlying problem and this is a manifestation which can be controlled more easily. not to put thoughts in people's head | 03:37:07 |
| Winter (she/her) | right
(what do you mean by that last sentence, you don't want to influence anyone's opinion on the matter by saying that?) | 03:38:29 |
