| 2 Aug 2025 |
 raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | i will take a look if i can reproduce and check if GitHub is at fault or we have a bug somewhere else in the machinery | 22:50:26 |
| 3 Aug 2025 |
 helle (just a stray cat girl) | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
i will take a look if i can reproduce and check if GitHub is at fault or we have a bug somewhere else in the machinery according to jade and myself it most likely had a bug in the machinery
and we don't have any test suite coverage for it and we need to add the machinery for it | 05:11:37 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | * according to jade and myself it most likely is a bug in the machinery
and we don't have any test suite coverage for it and we need to add the machinery for it
| 05:12:37 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | (machinery being testing bad and weird http states, which due to how deeply we configure and add hooks to curl in lix, have failure modes not seen in curl itself | 05:13:57 |
 K900 | I have a stupid(?) idea | 07:46:54 |
| K900 | Should I duct tape systemd-inhibit to the build hook | 07:48:50 |
| helle (just a stray cat girl) | needs discussing, but is reasonable to consider | 07:54:54 |
| K900 | Oh no logind doesn't have a C API for this | 07:56:51 |
 jade_ | no, because the build hook rejects if it's going to do a local build, so you have no idea whether a nix build is actively running | 08:39:53 |
 Linux Hackerman | so I've fixed cross-compilation (and the issue where I reported that it was broken was labelled as a release blocker). Would it make sense to add at least one cross build to CI, so it doesn't get broken by accident again? Or is that too costly? | 15:36:43 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | go ahead | 16:19:30 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | add it | 16:19:31 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | we are a bit strained on x86 but that shall change soon I suppose | 16:19:41 |
 just1602 | I was thinking about lix CI while listening to a podcast where someone from 0xide mention that a full rack has 2000 CPU core, 32TB of RAM and something like 250TB of storage. | 16:22:02 |
| just1602 | I was like, just half a rack would be enough to fix all our CI issues | 16:22:12 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | hahahahaha | 16:22:16 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | but we don't have millions of euros on our hand alas | 16:22:22 |
| just1602 | At some point, I hope they're gonna have enough client to sponsor some nice opensourc projects :D | 16:23:57 |
 aloisw | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
we are a bit strained on x86 but that shall change soon I suppose If you have enough aarch64 then I guess you could also do aarch64 -> x86_64 cross? | 16:42:09 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | we do have more aarch64 | 16:42:20 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | at least, x86 is doing more work than aarch64 | 16:42:25 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | so plausibly, this could be the job you described | 16:42:31 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | it will still generate more work for x86 which will have to calculate one more job at the nej phase | 16:42:43 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | but not a compilation job at least | 16:42:48 |
| K900 | But what if I add it to the goal loop | 16:44:29 |
| aloisw | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
it will still generate more work for x86 which will have to calculate one more job at the nej phase Evaling one Lix should be quite cheap though? | 16:48:19 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | In reply to @aloisw:julia0815.de
Evaling one Lix should be quite cheap though? Yeah, I didn't mean this as this would be much more expensive | 16:48:44 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | but cost for x86(after) > cost for x86(before) | 16:48:54 |
| raitobezarius (DECT: 7248) | maybe by epsilon | 16:48:56 |
| K900 | I am fully ready to commit crimes to make this happen and Lix won't even be the worst of them | 16:49:53 |
