nixos-option: rewrite as a nix script, 2nd try#369151
Conversation
|
CC @Mic92 @lf- @Aleksanaa @FireyFly @azuwis . |
|
@NixOS/nixpkgs-vet Can someone help me with the issue? |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Simply remove the default value for |
|
I also backported #363967 to make sure that we are not breaking installer tests. |
ff1f59d to
06d8011
Compare
Interesting, getting the following errors in the Details
nixpkgs/nixos/tests/installer.nix Lines 738 to 740 in faf9ccd Would appreciate some help. |
|
Moving this PR to draft until I find some way to fix the NixOS tests, help would be appreciate. |
|
@thiagokokada I believe these installers have some build dependencies injected into the build closure so they can install nixos offline. You might have pushed some new dependencies that you now also have to add to make the test work. |
Yes, that much I know. What is not clear to me is where I need to add the new dependencies, and why e.g.: |
|
No |
|
Hm, the installer test is attempting to build a different |
|
Okay that actually sounds very much like the filesets thing then. But it doesn’t use filesets and doesn’t look like it depends on anything that does so I’m a bit confused. I’m a little worried it’s |
|
Yea, it's the This is sort of a variant of the chroot bug that afflicts filesets, because I used flakes and |
|
I think |
06d8011 to
f2d7d55
Compare
Done. Edit: run the tests locally, seems to be working now. Thanks @emilazy @ElvishJerricco. |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/5036 |
|
@thiagokokada #371835 just realized... we should not make this depend on perl if possible. This is part of the nixos closure. |
|
This broke NixOS evaluation for riscv64-linux Ref #231537 |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-option-dumping-cores/59339/4 |
Since NixOS/nixpkgs#369151, nixos-option now accepts a --flake parameter. Therefore, we can get rid of technical debt.
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/nixos-option-heisenberg-path/60020/3 |
|
We now went full circle #68193 😄 |
The tool now supports flakes natively: NixOS/nixpkgs#369151
Replaces: #313497.
The only changes compared to the PR above:
pkgs/by-namenixosTests.installer.simpleUefiSystemdBootaspassthru.testssincenixos-optionfailure is a channel blocker: nixos-option: link to nixos test #363967Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.