| 24 Aug 2025 |
 emily | with a private let binding? I'm confused :) | 01:38:31 |
| emily | the only non-fixed thing in scope of the let is sprinkles (since "sprinkles ? null must be the only formal argument of the file"), so the only way another definition in the top-level let could impede overridability is by referencing sprinkles when it shouldn't, right? | 01:39:17 |
| emily | vs. a let inside output | 01:39:19 |
 Charles | sprinkles.new takes an attrset with 3 arguments, output, source, and input; and accessing stuff through self in output = self: ...; will give you the overridden version of sources and inputs if they were overridden by a caller | 01:40:00 |
| emily | I don't understand what that has to do with what names you're allowed to define in the top-level let (but also feel bad about having spent this much time on off-topic stuff anyway) | 01:41:25 |
| Charles | could move to a DM if you want? | 01:41:51 |
| emily | oh, maybe you mean the worry is other bindings referencing source? | 01:42:07 |
| emily | sure if you'd like :) | 01:42:10 |
 aloisw | Sure, my point is that I think it will stay around longer if it's not separate, due to the deadlock. | 05:30:04 |
| aloisw | Regarding the recursive lambda issue bumping nixpkgs sounds good to me. 2.91 will probably also need its C++ standard to be changed to C++23. | 05:31:09 |
 raitobezarius | <3 aloisw on openssl | 17:46:20 |
| 25 Aug 2025 |
 jade_ | ughhhh can we kill them plspls, | 03:50:51 |
| jade_ | not having to do the especially burnout inducing third party enforced maintenance tasks four separate times would be very helpful | 04:21:13 |
| raitobezarius | On 24.11? We have probably nothing to do? | 09:16:54 |
| raitobezarius | https://endoflife.date/nixos | 09:17:01 |
| raitobezarius | Security support for 24.11 ended 1 month ago | 09:17:05 |
| raitobezarius | The question pertains to 25.05 now | 09:17:11 |
 llakala | see the relevant discussion at https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/426260 | 11:29:09 |
| llakala | (most of the people here have actually talked in this PR, but I think it's still the best way to facilitate any change to this) | 11:29:44 |
| raitobezarius | ah yes | 13:20:15 |
| raitobezarius | yeah i promised wolfgang something | 13:20:22 |
| raitobezarius | so we should only drop 2.90 | 13:20:30 |
| raitobezarius | if someone is willing to implement the proposed changes by wolfgang, that'd be great | 13:21:15 |
| raitobezarius | my attention is fully taken on other urgent topics, e.g. nixos-module & infra | 13:21:22 |
|  Federico Damián Schonborn (he/they) changed their profile picture. | 13:36:15 |
| Federico Damián Schonborn (he/they) changed their display name from Cat McFishface 🏳️🌈 (he/they) to Mr. Bones (he/they). | 13:38:33 |
| aloisw | The problem is not that 24.11 is on Lix 2.91, but that the in-tree packaging of 2.91 (and 2.92) is still on 24.11 which doesn't have recent enough clang for the recursive lambda. | 16:36:54 |
| raitobezarius | Got it | 16:37:10 |
| raitobezarius | I plan to add Renovate to the Lix repo | 16:37:16 |
| raitobezarius | So hopefully, many lockfiles stale issues will disappear | 16:37:22 |
