Lix Development | 434 Members | |
| (Technical) development of Lix, the package manager, a Nix implementation. Please be mindful of ongoing technical conversations in this channel. | 142 Servers |
| Sender | Message | Time |
|---|---|---|
| 29 Apr 2026 | ||
| * to close the loop, I think I fixed the thing https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/514441 | 13:54:48 | |
actually Qyriad i removed this line that you added in f9d08cc44c, and i do get correct sources in lldb and gdb; is there some nuance i'm missing there? | 15:12:57 | |
* actually Qyriad i removed this line that you added in f9d08cc44c, and i do get correct sources in lldb and gdb without needing any setup in the debugger (eg source-map in lldb); is there some nuance i'm missing there? | 15:13:45 | |
* actually Qyriad i removed this line that you added in f9d08cc44c, and i do get correct sources in lldb and gdb without needing any setup in the debugger (eg source-map in lldb); is there some nuance i'm missing there? | 15:13:52 | |
| 30 Apr 2026 | ||
| 01:21:10 | ||
| Redacted or Malformed Event | 01:21:24 | |
| I didn't know Lix had a Terms of Service (TOS), considering it's not a service... | 01:27:31 | |
| 13:43:59 | ||
In reply to @blokyk:matrix.orgProbably not. Iwrc there have been changes to Nixpkgs' default path mapping stuff since that commit, but if removing it now fixes things then yeet it! | 13:51:50 | |
| 18:33:21 | ||
| 18:47:20 | ||
| 1 May 2026 | ||
| Oh cool, I missed that when it came out: https://lwn.net/Articles/1054225/ | 11:19:40 | |
| It only took them almost seven years! | 11:19:49 | |
| I thought it was an unmerged patchset? | 11:24:35 | |
| Not sure if it's the exact same API, but this looks like the entry point to the thing: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/io_uring/register.c?h=v7.0.3#n1014 | 11:26:15 | |
| Oh great | 11:32:28 | |
| 17:12:38 | ||
| 2 May 2026 | ||
| Noticed one thing here: https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/src/commit/cd573beb0a60d6bf0e341bcd4d2c464ed97c1a8a/lix/libstore/sqlite.cc#L186-L190 The reasoning there doesn't seem entirely correct since per sqlite docs NUL bytes anywhere in the string are UB?
| 01:14:56 | |
| That's not my interpretation of "result of expressions involving strings with embedded NULs is undefined". To me it seems that storing or retrieving these strings is completely fine, but if you put it into a SQL expression the behaviour is unspecified in C standards language. | 05:10:20 | |
| there's a docs page dedicated to this:
| 07:25:16 | |
Lol, that's quite a formulation for "we didn't put the effort into making it work in the CLI". | 07:29:19 | |
| 14:06:27 | ||
| 3 May 2026 | ||
| 09:53:44 | ||
| 10:39:01 | ||
| 22:42:19 | ||
| 4 May 2026 | ||
| 22:22:34 | ||
| 5 May 2026 | ||
i've had test_import_from_derivation.py::test_warn_ifd and test_import_from_derivation.py::test_allow_ifd consistently fail on main and looking at the output, it's because there's a rogue "auto-disabling sandboxing because the prerequisite namespaces are not available," but can anyone tell me... what that message means? and why it's affecting the tests / what i can do about it | 19:04:47 | |
* i've had test_import_from_derivation.py::test_warn_ifd and test_import_from_derivation.py::test_allow_ifd consistently fail on main and looking at the output, it's because there's a rogue "auto-disabling sandboxing because the prerequisite namespaces are not available," but can anyone tell me... what that message even means? and why it's affecting the tests / what i can do about it | 19:04:54 | |
* i've had test_import_from_derivation.py::test_warn_ifd and test_import_from_derivation.py::test_allow_ifd consistently fail on main and looking at the output, it's because there's a rogue "auto-disabling sandboxing because the prerequisite namespaces are not available," but can anyone tell me... what that message even means? and why it's affecting the tests / what i can do about it? | 19:05:23 | |
| It most likely means that user namespaces are broken on your system (maybe because it's recent Ubuntu) and therefore the sandbox doesn't work. For the old functional test suite tests requiring sandboxing were skipped in this case. I lost track of what was done for functional2. | 19:10:10 | |