| 23 May 2023 |
 Vladimír Čunát | But it's all weird. | 14:05:18 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Like, there are only x86 packages in there. | 14:05:27 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
I'm not for bullying in any cases :) — but I think a Darwin RM would be much more responsible than (me or hexa? :D) towards Darwin /s | 14:05:46 |
| Vladimír Čunát | So even if aarch64-darwin were completely broken, we would still get a channel bump. | 14:05:53 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Forcing exclusively Linux users to deal with messy Darwin stuff is just so incredibly frustrating. | 14:06:33 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | It'd be better to have someone that uses Darwin (thus means they care for Darwin) to deal with Darwin issues | 14:07:13 |
| Vladimír Čunát | @darwin-maintainers exist at least and can be pinged in such cases. | 14:07:47 |
| Vladimír Čunát | But I don't think it works that well in practice. | 14:07:58 |
 Weijia | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Aaah, we can't have 23.05 darwin channel because release critical stuff (wireshark) hasn't been building since January and noone seems to mind 🤦
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/nixpkgs-23.05-darwin/darwin-tested
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/darwin-tested Qt 5 was modified to target SDK 11 earlier this year, while stdenv is at 10.12 | 14:08:02 |
| Vladimír Čunát | (at least we have ofBorg) | 14:08:04 |
| Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Darwin is a black box and hard to debug on and it gets even worse if you don't have direct access to a Darwin machine. | 14:08:17 |
| Weijia | In reply to @vcunat:matrix.org
Aaah, we can't have 23.05 darwin channel because release critical stuff (wireshark) hasn't been building since January and noone seems to mind 🤦
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/nixpkgs-23.05-darwin/darwin-tested
https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixpkgs/trunk/darwin-tested * Qt 5 was modified to target SDK 11 earlier this year, while stdenv is at 10.12 on x86_64-darwin | 14:08:48 |
| Weijia | I suspect almost all Qt 5 packages are broken there for mixing SDKs. | 14:10:16 |
| Weijia | * I suspect almost all Qt 5 packages are broken there for mixing SDKs | 14:10:24 |
| Weijia | Clearly not an issue on aarch64-darwin | 14:11:25 |
| Weijia | But Qt 6 now asks for SDK 12 :-( | 14:11:40 |
 @linus:schreibt.jetzt | In reply to @wegank:matrix.org
Clearly not an issue on aarch64-darwin yet? :> | 14:11:48 |
| Vladimír Čunát | It has higher SDK in stdenv already. | 14:14:10 |
| Weijia | In reply to @linus:schreibt.jetzt
yet? :> aarch64-darwin only has SDK 11 | 14:14:17 |
| @linus:schreibt.jetzt | right, but surely it'll have a new SDK eventually | 14:14:39 |
| Vladimír Čunát | * It has higher SDK in stdenv already (higher than x86). | 14:14:40 |
 raitobezarius | Good, all my servers are running 23.05 now :) | 14:16:13 |
| Weijia | In reply to @linus:schreibt.jetzt
right, but surely it'll have a new SDK eventually Yeah, a lot: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/229210 | 14:17:08 |
| Weijia | But I'm not sure if we can really move Qt to SDK 12 on aarch64-darwin without a global SDK bump | 14:18:58 |
| raitobezarius | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/233625 | 14:47:46 |
| raitobezarius | hexa: ^ isn't this too late? :/ | 14:47:51 |
 hexa | tbh: we have to accept whatever allows operators to continue their deployment | 14:48:30 |
| raitobezarius | hm not sure what this means here, I don't know enough operators in k8s | 14:49:11 |
| raitobezarius | * hm not sure what this means here, I don't know enough operators' version constraints in k8s | 14:49:17 |
| Vladimír Čunát | Maybe for the following releases we should explicitly clarify whether removing a package is a "breaking change". | 14:51:34 |
