| 18 Jan 2026 |
 Randy Eckenrode | It was tagged 2501–5000, which is why I’m targeting staging for unstable. Since it’s broken on 25.11, would that still go through staging-25.11 due to the number of builds? | 20:14:10 |
 Vladimír Čunát | Can you make it rebuild on darwin only? (for now) | 20:23:43 |
| Vladimír Čunát | It's broken exactly on staging-next and release-25.11 currently. | 20:24:29 |
| Vladimír Čunát | If it's a darwin-only rebuild for setproctitle, I'd target these two. | 20:24:58 |
| Vladimír Čunát | * If it's a darwin-only rebuild for setproctitle, I'd target these two, probably. | 20:25:11 |
| Vladimír Čunát | I notified upstream, BTW:
https://github.com/dvarrazzo/py-setproctitle/issues/111#issuecomment-3765074486 | 20:27:31 |
| Randy Eckenrode | It rebuilds only on Darwin because the tests are only disabled on Darwin. I can retarget staging-next if it’s already broken there. | 20:28:18 |
| Randy Eckenrode | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/481408 fixes it on staging-next. | 20:30:17 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Why not tag it as backport-release-25.11 directly? | 20:34:53 |
|  isabel changed their profile picture. | 20:43:58 |
 Arian | Heya I'm super confused
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/475079 was opened on 29.12.2025 and merged on 10.01.2026
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/474788 was merged on 28.12.2025
the 258.3 bump still didn't land on 25.11
Did I miss the window by a few seconds? | 22:05:22 |
| Arian | At this rate , given that the next staging-next-25.11 iteration will take at least a week; it means it'll take ~5 weeks from merge to landing in a channel. That feels long. What could I have done differently to speed this up? Should I have proactively asked to include it in the previous staging-next cycle manually? | 22:15:48 |
| Arian | * At this rate , given that the next staging-next-25.11 iteration will take at least a week; it means it'll take ~5 weeks from merge to landing in a channel. That feels way too long. What could I have done differently to speed this up? Should I have proactively asked to include it in the previous staging-next cycle manually? | 22:15:58 |
 hexa | make sure we have more people fixing darwin problems | 22:26:52 |
| hexa | and prune nixpkgs | 22:26:59 |
 mdaniels5757 | You missed it by either a day or a few hours, depending on whether you are counting from https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/475079/changes/847f6e97a3b8eb3d0ee39b035468fecb9b2d1cf6 or https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/475079/changes/488bd0cc3f63fab0c24c69dfeff2db38d8a3e9f1. | 22:28:45 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | can we make non-minimal systemd somehow not a mass-rebuild maybe? systemdMinimal and systemdLibs will always go to staging, but i wonder if the big systemd has to. | 22:28:51 |
| hexa | if you want it in it's best to talk to people in this room | 22:30:06 |
| hexa | missing a cycle is expensive indeed | 22:30:16 |
| hexa | there are options to delay the start of a cycle or merge things into an active cycle | 22:32:53 |
