| 21 Aug 2025 |
 emily | I'll look into it when I get the chance. | 20:16:34 |
 raitobezarius | no worries, emily, take your time | 20:16:47 |
| raitobezarius | thank you! | 20:16:49 |
 niko ⚡️ | I forgor to contribute adding capnproto to propagadedBuildInputs again damn | 21:45:03 |
| niko ⚡️ | Each time bumping attic reminds me to do it and each time I forget about it | 21:45:26 |
|  June joined the room. | 22:48:48 |
|  @julian:nekover.se left the room. | 22:49:16 |
| 23 Aug 2025 |
 aloisw | So we require a toml11 version that is not in nixpkgs yet? https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/commit/4de09b6b5493db4bd7f6348255a1fdcb38b9ed2f | 08:27:24 |
| emily | it is not in Nixpkgs precisely because of Nix/Lix and nothing else | 16:47:52 |
| emily | but also those commits didn't get backported to stable versions yet | 16:48:35 |
| emily | because I opened cherry-picks and then the build broke and I ran out of energy to fix it | 16:48:44 |
| emily | (most of the code that commit makes unconditional is removed immediately after with the busted experimental feature anyway…) | 16:50:13 |
| aloisw | Yeah I noticed as much, see https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/434186#issuecomment-3216812062 for some more context. | 17:12:51 |
| emily | I think if someone handles the backports for the backportable part of the stack then the deadlock will be broken. | 17:49:14 |
| emily | it was only reverted on the Nix end because of the cursed Nixpkgs behaviour but I got that fixed in Nixpkgs | 17:49:26 |
| emily | and then we can just cherry-pick stuff | 17:49:33 |
| emily | I just got demotivated after firing off a bunch of cherry-picks and seeing the builds fail | 17:49:51 |
| aloisw | On 2.91 this seems to be recursive lambda not being supported due to it not being C++23 yet. But yeah the Clang ICE on 2.92 does not look fun. | 17:59:14 |
| aloisw | Actually it fails on Darwin as well due to recursive lambda so maybe it's the same. | 18:01:27 |
| aloisw | That still doesn't explain why it fails properly on Darwin and ICEs on Linux though. | 18:02:01 |
| aloisw | nix-repl> (import ./. { system = "x86_64-linux"; }).clangStdenv.cc.version
"18.1.8"
nix-repl> (import ./. { system = "aarch64-darwin"; }).clangStdenv.cc.version
"16.0.6"
That might do it I guess? | 18:04:16 |
| emily | uh, how old is that Nixpkgs pin? | 18:24:41 |
| emily | we switched to LLVM 19 on all platforms in 25.05 | 18:24:49 |
| emily | I guess CI is just running against EOL Nixpkgs releases? | 18:25:08 |
| aloisw | 2.91 and 2.92 are on 24.11. | 18:37:00 |
| aloisw | Which is also what was evaluated in the pasted nix-repl output. | 18:37:35 |
| aloisw | So either nixpkgs needs to be bumped in these old branches, the recursive lambda removed, or polyfilled with y combinator. | 18:38:26 |
| emily | I don't see why not bump Nixpkgs | 19:05:51 |
| emily | that also means that people using the NixOS module are getting a Lix built from EOL Nixpkgs…? | 19:06:05 |
| emily | ok, no, because the NixOS module uses a different Nixpkgs | 19:06:44 |
