| 6 Sep 2025 |
|  SomeoneSerge (back on matrix) changed their display name from SomeoneSerge (Ever OOMed by Element) to SomeoneSerge (@nixcon & back on matrix). | 09:24:26 |
 aloisw | If I read https://buildkite.com/lix-project/lix correctly, the last build was on August 29th. So there indeed seems to be an outage. | 09:57:19 |
| aloisw | emily The nixpkgs bump backports are finished now and your changes rebased. I have verified that the heads build on my machine (x86_64-linux). However I'm not sure I haven't missed anything, we will know after the CI outage has been resolved I guess. | 12:18:38 |
 emily | oh, I am sorry to have induced you to spend effort on that, because I think on the Nixpkgs end we just established that we don't need to worry about keeping 2.91 and so on… | 12:55:14 |
| emily | which is a relief | 12:55:19 |
| emily | I was going to say the team should figure out whether 2.92 is staying too before we spend more effort on the backports. cc raitobezarius? | 12:55:36 |
| emily | (obviously 2.91 should get security support until the end of the year anyway since it's still default on 25.05, but it looks like we can drop whatever from unstable safely) | 12:56:01 |
 raitobezarius | DNS resolution issues, this was fixed some hours ago | 12:56:08 |
| emily | (so no need to worry about the toml11 bump for versions being dropped) | 12:56:14 |
| raitobezarius | I'd rather to do without 2.92 but I cannot keep track about what wolfgangwalther has settled on | 12:56:21 |
| raitobezarius | I did promise them that I would take care of security backports for that release until 25.11 is out, if I remember well | 12:56:47 |
| raitobezarius | Alright | 12:57:12 |
| raitobezarius | Yeah, I think we should drop 2.92 as well | 12:57:21 |
| emily | well I replied and we established that what versions exist on unstable is irrelevant for upgrade compatibility | 12:57:37 |
| emily | (because you care about bug-compatibility of dependency closures, so you really just have to pin the old Nixpkgs if you want to validate that) | 12:57:55 |
| raitobezarius | I did see that reply but I didn't see a clear TLDR consensus | 12:57:56 |
| emily | ok I'll reply again summarizing what I understand the consensus to be now :P | 12:58:05 |
| raitobezarius | If you tell me that consensus has been reached on that position, all good | 12:58:07 |
| aloisw | 2.91 is the default in 25.05 so it needs to stay anyway. | 12:58:10 |
| aloisw | ("stay" as in "supported upstream" in case it's not clear) | 12:58:41 |
| emily | it doesn't need to stay in unstable | 12:58:41 |
| emily | which is the only place getting the toml11 bump | 12:58:48 |
| emily | IOW, you have to security-support (2.91 on 25.05), but not (2.91 on 25.11) | 12:58:57 |
| emily | so changes in libraries in 25.11 are irrelevant, which is what my toml11 series is about | 12:59:09 |
| emily | in this case this is a significantly lower burden | 12:59:19 |
| aloisw | OTOH the main effort was backporting the bumps to 25.05 which is probably not a bad idea anyway as they are supported for that nixpkgs release. | 12:59:54 |
| raitobezarius | Hm, I think we are still running in an annoying systemd bug | 13:00:36 |
| raitobezarius | taking down all CI operations | 13:00:43 |
| emily | raitobezarius: posted https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/426260#issuecomment-3262112732 with my belief on what the consensus bottom line is:
In other words, I’d expect our minimum expectations to be “the default version on any given supported Nixpkgs releases is supported for security and critical bug fixes when used in the context of that Nixpkgs releases”.
| 13:09:03 |
| aloisw | Is the systemd bug taking them down or did you take them down because they won't work anyway with the systemd bug? | 13:15:28 |
