sd-image: remove implicit profiles/all-hardware

[arcnmx]

Motivation for this change

Allows SD images to be created for systems not compatible with the all-hardware profile.

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 21.11 Release Notes (or backporting 21.05 Relase notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[samueldr]

Why is this added to this "alias-like" file?

[arcnmx]

No good reason, it just felt bad to not limit the impact of this change.

[samueldr]

Can you describe what is "not compatible" with the all-hardware profile?

Is it something else than kernel modules causing issues? Am I right to assume further fallout from #78430? See also #109280 for additional discussion.

[arcnmx]

Can you describe what is "not compatible" with the all-hardware profile?

To be fair for the most part it was... the fact that I had a config/closure, and only wanted to pull in the SD image generation options to build an image of the system. It felt rather presumptuous of it to set a bunch of options as if I wanted to generate some bloated "installer" image. It certainly was not my intention to create a system that could even remotely be described as "all-hardware" just because I wanted to place it on an SD card?

... but maybe that's my fault for trying to use a module under the "installer/" subdir and the real solution here is to move it to a different name/path without the same connotations? It's generically useful for a lot more than just building an installer image.

Is it something else than kernel modules causing issues? Am I right to assume further fallout from #78430? See also #109280 for additional discussion.

Hm so the modules were part of it, but so were the firmware options. It all generally made initrd way too large to fit in memory to boot with.
(and yes, most of the modules it adds to the list do not exist)

[urbas]

I wonder if we ever use the nixos/modules/installer/sd-card/sd-image.nix module directly to build any official images. If so, this change might break those images. If not, then this PR should be safe to merge.

I agree with the thought about the installer/ directory. Perhaps a better approach would be to extract the base image stuff into a new module (maybe in nixos/modules/profiles/base-sd-image.nix or something like that). Then nixos/modules/installer/sd-card/sd-image.nix can import this module.

[urbas]

This looks good to me 👍

Edit: maybe just rebase on a recent nixpkgs-unstable.

[arcnmx]

Hm there shouldn't have been conflicts but rebased just in case!

[arcnmx]

rebased again

(this commit is basically just git mv nixos/modules/installer/sd-card/sd-image.nix nixos/modules/profiles/base-sd-image.nix, remove the all-hardware.nix import, and then put a stub where it used to be including both profiles)

[urbas]

Looks good to me 👍

Unfortunately, I don't have the permissions to merge PRs in this repo.

@samueldr, FYI

[arcnmx]

Rebased again 😥

cc @samueldr