zfsUnstable: 2.1.1 -> 2021-11-11

[hmenke]

Motivation for this change

With this change zfsUnstable will always track the latest master branch and has all kernel compatibility checks disabled. This allows using zfsUnstable with kernels that have not been marked compatible by upstream.

Alternative to #145458

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 21.11 Release Notes (or backporting 21.05 Release 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.

[hmenke]

@Mic92

[Mic92]

I am just a bit worried that this could make it harder to know when to upgrade.
Following releases or release candidates is a bit easier.

[hmenke]

Well, it is either one or the other.

Either we follow releases and release candidates but then we also have to adhere to upstream's compatibility checks or we just throw all compatibility out of the window and just follow the master branch.

In my personal opinion, the zfsUnstable package should be removed altogether and people who want to mix and match incompatible kernels and ZFS version should use overlays. That way they at least cannot point the finger at the maintainers if their pool is corrupted.

[hmenke]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 145483 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package blacklisted:

• nixos-install-tools

1 package failed to build:

• linuxKernel.packages.linux_hardened.zfsUnstable (linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_10_hardened.zfsUnstable)

19 packages built:

• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_14.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_14_hardened.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_19.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_19_hardened.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_4.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_4_9.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_10.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_14.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_14_hardened.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_15.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_4.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_5_4_hardened.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_latest_libre.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_libre.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_lqx.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_testing_bcachefs.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_xanmod.zfsUnstable
• linuxKernel.packages.linux_zen.zfsUnstable
• zfsUnstable

[Mic92]

Well, it is either one or the other.

Either we follow releases and release candidates but then we also have to adhere to upstream's compatibility checks or we just throw all compatibility out of the window and just follow the master branch.

In my personal opinion, the zfsUnstable package should be removed altogether and people who want to mix and match incompatible kernels and ZFS version should use overlays. That way they at least cannot point the finger at the maintainers if their pool is corrupted.

If you don't want to maintain zfsUnstable, I am fine with that. I can also take over maintenance for it.

[hmenke]

This PR was a stupid idea, sorry.