| 11 Jan 2026 |
|  ghpzin changed their display name from ghpzin (moved to @ghpzin:envs.net) to ghpzin. | 15:04:47 |
|  @ghpzin:envs.net left the room. | 16:16:27 |
 connor (he/him) | Anyone want to start on the OpenCV bump if there isnāt one already š«© | 18:50:29 |
 GaƩtan Lepage | Sure, opened https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/479136. Not tested yet. | 20:19:53 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | After a shameful number of hours spend on building the latest ORT, I finally succeeded!
The PR has been opened since Oct. 10 2025!
Thanks to @yuyurureka who found the last missing patch to make the thing build!
Not thanks to Microslop for shipping broken software.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/450587 | 23:30:41 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | * After a shameful number of hours spend on building the latest ORT, I finally succeeded!
The PR has been opened since Oct. 10 2025!
Thanks to @yuyurureka who found the last missing patch to make the thing build!
Not thanks to Microslop for shipping broken software.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/450587
EDIT: still fails with cudaSupport and rocmSupport :') | 23:36:02 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | * After a shameful number of hours spend on building the latest ORT, I finally succeeded!
The PR has been opened since Oct. 10 2025!
Thanks to @yuyurureka who found the last missing patch to make the thing build!
Not thanks to Microslop for shipping broken software.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/450587
EDIT: still fails with cudaSupport and rocmSupport :')
EDIT2: turns out they seem to have removed Rocm support (https://github.com/microsoft/onnxruntime/pull/25181) | 23:59:01 |
| 12 Jan 2026 |
| ghpzin | Madouura has not been active for over a year and their maintainer entry was removed, probably better to ping rocm team.
From PR description they seem to have removed support for ROCM EP and expectation is to use MIGraphX EP instead.
https://onnxruntime.ai/docs/execution-providers/ROCm-ExecutionProvider.html
NOTE ROCm Execution Provider has been removed since 1.23 release. Please Migrate your applications to use the MIGraphX Execution Provider
| 00:28:11 |
| 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 |
| tpw_rules | i guess? it's my personal opinion and thought and i'd appreciate comment from the man himself | 03:39:28 |
| tpw_rules | i think i mixed my metaphors slightly. i don't intend to put words in his mouth | 03:40:00 |
| tpw_rules | there's also this: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/185078 | 03:42:14 |
| tpw_rules | it's not really fair to characterize python general package updates as "breaking everything all over again" and the notice wouldn't have prevented it. it's just sort of life as being the center of a tangled web of dependencies | 03:43:13 |
