| 26 Apr 2026 |
 manueljacob | Or does it not check not the debug packages? | 19:34:33 |
| manueljacob | * | 19:51:52 |
 Julien | It depends what is in the minimal iso | 19:55:50 |
| manueljacob | Sure, it doesn’t make much sense for the minimal-iso-runtime jobset to check reproducibility of anything not included in the minimal ISO, and I assume that debug information is not included in the ISO. I’m not sure it makes sense for minimal-iso-build-closure, but I think it would be useful to have all outputs (including debug information) checked for some packages in some jobset. | 20:35:43 |
| 27 Apr 2026 |
|  Ninja joined the room. | 14:39:15 |
| 28 Apr 2026 |
|  Aangularity joined the room. | 04:39:25 |
|  implr joined the room. | 08:13:50 |
| implr | Hi, I wrote in #users earlier but it got buried under a different discussion. I have a coreutils build failing tests, but only under nix on Gentoo. On nixos it builds fine. The kernel is of course different, but that shouldn't affect that test as far as I can tell | 08:18:45 |
| implr | it's nix-build -E '(import <nixpkgs> {}).pkgs.coreutils.override { singleBinary = false; }' (with the channel pointing to the same commit, but it doesn't seem to matter anyway, old versions still fail) | 08:18:56 |
| implr | curiously, on Gentoo nix-shell <derivation>; genericBuild; checkPhase also passes, so idk how do i even debug this | 08:19:54 |
| 29 Apr 2026 |
| implr | for posterity, this is an issue with how the gentoo packaging of nix builds its sandbox busybox: https://github.com/trofi/nix-guix-gentoo/blob/master/sys-apps/busybox-nix-sandbox-shell/busybox-nix-sandbox-shell-1.36.1.ebuild#L105 is different from the nixos one | 21:37:26 |
| 30 Apr 2026 |
 raboof | Oh wow. Good find | 06:23:07 |
|  isabel changed their profile picture. | 18:45:59 |
| 2 May 2026 |
| isabel changed their profile picture. | 23:31:28 |
| 8 May 2026 |
|  jopejoe1 changed their display name from jopejoe1 (4094@epvpn) to jopejoe1. | 08:42:23 |
| 10 May 2026 |
 emily | https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2026/05/msg00001.html | 16:08:52 |
| emily | Aided by the efforts of the Reproducible Builds project [1], we've decided it's
time to say that Debian must ship reproducible packages. Since yesterday, we
have enabled our migration software to block migration of new packages that
can't be reproduced [2] or existing packages (in testing) that regress in
reproducibility. | 16:09:03 |
| raboof | Something to aspire to! | 17:18:23 |
| 13 May 2026 |
 ethancedwards8 | hmmm | 16:59:17 |
| ethancedwards8 | this has me thinking | 16:59:20 |
| ethancedwards8 | is there a way to make nixpkgs-review report on if a package is reproducible or not? maybe this is something we want to start looking at in reviews | 17:00:01 |
 Pol | Excellent idea :) but that would probably slow down the review. I don't mind actually, it's a great idea. | 17:48:55 |
 nim65s | That would basically require building stuff x4 I guess ? | 20:13:06 |
| ethancedwards8 | why 4x? | 21:42:59 |
| ethancedwards8 | i thought just 2x? | 21:43:05 |
| ethancedwards8 | this should probably just be opt-in | 21:43:20 |
| ethancedwards8 | i'll think about this and try to work on it this weekend (7 hours flight ahead of me :( ) | 21:43:47 |
| 14 May 2026 |
|  Defelo joined the room. | 07:13:31 |
| Pol changed their display name from Pol to Pol (out, touching grass). | 07:37:59 |
| Pol changed their display name from Pol (out, touching grass) to Pol. | 16:32:01 |
