| 13 Jun 2026 |
|  debtquity set a profile picture. | 03:23:23 |
|  Pengo joined the room. | 08:02:46 |
|  brume joined the room. | 16:22:49 |
| 17 Jun 2026 |
|  Jibi joined the room. | 14:12:35 |
| 18 Jun 2026 |
 Puna | would it be acceptable to raise the timeout on the functional2 testsuite to like, triple its current value (300 seconds)? my ppc64 hardware is nowhere close to completing that in time when building lixPackageSets.latest.lix in Nixpkgs
lix> 80/80 installcheck - lix:functional2 OK 712.47s 1118 subtests passed
| 13:20:36 |
 raitobezarius | Should it be sent to nixpkgs or do you need it on the HEAD builds as well? | 13:26:49 |
| raitobezarius | I'd also say that a conditional timeout based on the architecture doesn't surprise me at all | 13:27:02 |
| Puna | well the machine is sadly 21 years old, so that's prolly the main reason for it taking so long… just the cheapest available ppc64 hardware | 13:28:29 |
| Puna | i'm fine with w/e, would just like to avoid carrying a patch for this in my branch forever | 13:29:56 |
| raitobezarius | please send it first to nixpkgs if that's what you are using with a conditional to keep the short timeout for fast architectures and a default slow timeouts for others architectures | 13:30:19 |
| raitobezarius | put me reviewer and i will take care of it | 13:30:22 |
| Puna | well, a more recent POWER machine bought from IBM (or prolly smth from raptor too) would likely be fine with the current timeout. it's not really an issue with the architecture, just with me not being made out of money to afford fancy new machines :)
but can discuss that on the pull request ig | 13:34:29 |
| Puna | * well, a more recent POWER machine bought from IBM (or prolly smth from raptor too) would likely be fine with the current timeout. it's not really an issue with the architecture, just with me not being made out of money to afford fancy new machines :)
but can discuss that on the pull request ig
edit: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/532989 | 16:40:49 |
|  whispers [& it/fae] changed their display name from whispers [& it/fae] to meow meow. | 18:47:00 |
| whispers [& it/fae] changed their display name from meow meow to whispers [& it/fae]. | 19:12:37 |
| 22 Jun 2026 |
|  @dontblameme:matrix.org left the room. | 12:26:04 |
| 23 Jun 2026 |
|  isabel changed their profile picture. | 19:54:59 |
| 26 Jun 2026 |
|  flx joined the room. | 09:18:14 |
| 28 Jun 2026 |
 K900 | The cursed curl change is now in staging-next | 16:03:12 |
| K900 | https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/5729 | 16:03:13 |
| K900 | raitobezarius can I have +2 | 16:14:39 |
| K900 | Or anyone else really | 16:53:22 |
| raitobezarius | +2ed | 17:20:29 |
| 30 Jun 2026 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | @Rutile you do functional2, you get my complaints :P
> 80/80 installcheck - lix:functional2 TIMEOUT 300.28s killed by signal 15 SIGTERM
Just ran into a test timeout on my shitty overloaded aarch64 builder. It really did not appreciate building kernel and testing functional2 at the same time. What is your take on making the timeout more lenient? I understand why there is a timeout, but i am willing to wait longer than just 5min when i tell that underpowered box to rebuild itself from source over night. | 06:36:03 |
|  buffet, das changed their display name from buffet to buffet, das. | 10:20:13 |
 Rutile | see here. | 11:00:16 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | Ah oops | 11:41:42 |
| Rutile | This should get documented in the issue tracker tho '^^ | 12:34:16 |
| Puna | considering the above, should i add ARM (prolly in general) to the condition for the raised timeout in the pull request? | 12:43:17 |
| Puna | * considering the above, should i add ARM (prolly in general) to the condition for the raised timeout in the pull request? or drop the condition entirely? | 12:45:27 |
