lanzaboote-tool: init at 0.3.0

[RaitoBezarius]

Description of changes

Split of #231951 for ease of review and getting this done, as requested by reviewers.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• 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 rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 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.

[nikstur]

The tests fail on aarch64-linux. Should we just mark it as a bad platform for now to get this merged?

[RaitoBezarius]

The tests fail on aarch64-linux. Should we just mark it as a bad platform for now to get this merged?

That makes sense, yes.

[RaitoBezarius]

The tests fail on aarch64-linux. Should we just mark it as a bad platform for now to get this merged?

I adopted rather an allow-list than a block-list because every other architecture won't work with lanzaboote for now.
In the future, we should adopt the badPlatforms = [ lib.systems.inspect.patterns.hasEfi ]; mechanism, in my opinon.

So we filter out any platform that is not known to possess UEFI for that specific variant of the lanzatool which will anyway be UEFI-only.