| 17 Feb 2026 |
|  theutz changed their profile picture. | 17:17:37 |
 hexa | to be fair, we can immediately remove x86_64-darwin builds on unstable after the release | 23:25:34 |
| hexa | * we can immediately remove x86_64-darwin builds on unstable after the release | 23:25:40 |
| hexa | we could really use the capacity for aarch64-darwin | 23:25:49 |
 Randy Eckenrode | I’d like to do the actual removal shortly in that timeframe as well. | 23:30:11 |
| Randy Eckenrode | I think @emily has suggested we could keep it around if someone wants to do something with it, but I’d rather delete it so people can stop worrying about it. | 23:30:45 |
| Randy Eckenrode | * I think emily has suggested we could keep it around if someone wants to do something with it, but I’d rather delete it so people can stop worrying about it. | 23:31:00 |
 emily | I remember us being on opposite sides of that 😅 | 23:31:01 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Glad I remembered correctly. 😂 | 23:31:19 |
| emily | my position is that if someone wants to fund maintenance and infra then x86_64-darwin can stay until end of official support, otherwise yeet it | 23:31:27 |
| emily | and I somewhat doubt anyone does want that | 23:31:32 |
| emily | I would like to get an eval warning out for 26.05 though | 23:31:41 |
| emily | just so much to do :( | 23:31:45 |
| Randy Eckenrode | They can do that in their own fork like the LTS folks are doing AFAIK. | 23:32:22 |
| emily | if it resulted in a net overall effective increase in capacity and maintenance time for aarch64-darwin then it'd be fine to have it in-tree, but I doubt anyone has the funds for that, so it should just go | 23:36:13 |
| hexa | so after 26.05 is branched we stop building into it? | 23:39:32 |
| emily | it'll need to be built for 26.05 stable but yes | 23:39:45 |
| hexa | yes, and for 25.11 until EOL | 23:39:53 |
| hexa | but not unstable, not staging-next | 23:39:59 |
| emily | right | 23:40:05 |
| 18 Feb 2026 |
|  -> @n:rab.lol changed their display name from niko ⚡️ to -> @n:rab.lol. | 23:28:26 |
| 19 Feb 2026 |
| emily | FWIW: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/492100 | 14:11:30 |
| emily | still need to do some work to get CI passing, and then I'll put up the draft PR for 26.11 that does the actual drop. (I also have, like, hundreds of treewide commits cleaning things up and fixing update scripts for the fallout of that, but they'll need cleaning up to be ready to send out even in draft form.) | 14:12:03 |
| Randy Eckenrode | The message suggests we will be keeping the platform definition but not building it. When do we get to delete it completely? | 14:28:49 |
| Randy Eckenrode | * | 14:29:04 |
| emily | does it imply that? I didn't intend to. I delete it in my commits that I'm going to push out | 14:30:29 |
| emily | you can --argstr system whatever you want to Nixpkgs, it just won't manage to bootstrap for most possible choices | 14:30:58 |
| emily | (do you mean the release notes? that's mostly from the copy I wrote for last release) | 14:37:45 |
| Randy Eckenrode | Yeah, the release notes. I can see someone interpreting, “we will no longer build packages for x86_64-darwin or guarantee that it can build at all,” that they can try anyway and fix what breaks on their own. | 14:40:10 |
| Randy Eckenrode | * Yeah, the release notes. I can see someone interpreting, “we will no longer build packages for x86_64-darwin or guarantee that it can build at all,” as they can try anyway and fix what breaks on their own. | 14:40:24 |
