| 11 Jan 2025 |
 Pouya Abbassi |
you can just set -Wno-error
how do I set this?
I fixed two issues. Now I'm getting the third one and I'm not a C programmer so they're a bit cryptic.
getipc.c:62:72: error: passing argument 3 of 'accept' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
62 | while( (client_fd = accept(server_fd, (struct sockaddr *)&sun, &len)) >= 0 )
| ^~~~
| 22:39:24 |
 emily | -Wno-error=incompatible-pointer-types | 22:39:42 |
| emily | it's not really worth patching because it's an unfree source dump that will never be updated | 22:40:00 |
| emily | just env.NIX_CFLAGS_COMPILE = "-Wno-error=a -Wno-error=b ā¦"; until it compiles | 22:40:12 |
| Pouya Abbassi | Thanks.
I found a file in the project that has CFLAGS definition. I have added -Wno-error to it š¤
I would add yet another patch to the patches that are availabele in the nixpkgs for this package. That should help others. If I can fix it at all. | 22:43:01 |
|  kuruczgy joined the room. | 22:59:44 |
| emily | Colin: guessing you use the libcap tools, so might want to participate in the discussion re: your PR in https://matrix.to/#/!UNVBThoJtlIiVwiDjU:nixos.org/$QjE6OLK38mYL4jjoy0IlAqolVHJmHoGHOYh5oIrFkNk?via=nixos.org&via=matrix.org&via=tchncs.de | 23:20:58 |
|  Coda-Coda changed their display name from snowflake100 to Coda-Coda. | 23:55:46 |
| 12 Jan 2025 |
 matthewcroughan | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/370832 unbreaks qtox which has been broken for a long time, but the maintainers aren't responding and aren't in this channel | 09:11:00 |
| matthewcroughan | I'm thinking of merging it, any objections? | 09:11:08 |
| matthewcroughan | tox.chat appears to reference this "TokTok" fork now, so seems legit | 09:11:30 |
|  Aurora0 joined the room. | 16:20:50 |
 GaƩtan Lepage | K900 should we merge the kernel bump ?
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/370410 | 16:41:34 |
 K900 | No? 6.13 is not out yet | 16:41:46 |
 Atemu | We had ofborg-like building a little while ago again; where did that go? | 17:01:44 |
| emily | supposedly it still exists | 17:06:13 |
| emily | see #ofborg:nixos.org | 17:06:16 |
| emily | I've never seen it actually complete a build personally though | 17:06:24 |
| Atemu | I have but I don't even see its CI check queued anywhere | 17:07:11 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
No? 6.13 is not out yet I thought we were only waiting for 6.12.9, which was likely to be released after 6.13. Sorry for the misunderstanding. | 18:05:18 |
| K900 | No, we are not | 18:05:35 |
| K900 | We are waiting for 6.12 to be officially marked as LTS | 18:05:47 |
| K900 | Which will likely happen after 6.13.0 | 18:05:52 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | I thought it was the case: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.12-LTS-Kernel-Official
Sorry, let's wait then ;) | 18:18:57 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | * I thought it was the case: https://www.phoronix.com/news/Linux-6.12-LTS-Kernel-Official
Sorry, let's wait then :) | 18:19:12 |
 Alyssa Ross | In reply to @k900:0upti.me
We are waiting for 6.12 to be officially marked as LTS it is officially LTS, and has been for ages: https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html | 18:35:05 |
| Alyssa Ross | the homepage just doesn't use the "longterm" label for LTSes that also happen to be current stable | 18:35:41 |
| GaƩtan Lepage | Ok, this makes sense | 18:37:51 |
 Niklas Korz | Considering nixpkgs-review 2.x is pretty much non functional atm unless explicitly specifying local evaluation (due to ofborg results missing), would it be plausible to backport 3.x to release-24.11? | 18:53:09 |
| emily | doesn't it fall back automatically? | 18:54:44 |
