| 19 Feb 2023 |
 @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
and they still show as configured... I mean they'll still show as configured after going down, right? Just the operational state would change I think | 22:41:57 |
 @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | oh, that's news to me | 22:42:20 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I thought down would bring them to an unconfigured state, releasing their DHCP leases and whatnot | 22:42:37 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I have a system to test that on... one sec | 22:42:45 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | Ah, confusingly configured is also an operational state | 22:42:53 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | But it should show off for the op state | 22:43:12 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | I would think | 22:43:15 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | yea, so when I bring the interface down on my machine, it says off for the op state | 22:44:02 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | I swapped my system from networkd to networkmanager (somewhat reluctantly...) a few weeks ago or I'd test | 22:44:08 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
yea, so when I bring the interface down on my machine, it says off for the op state Okay cool, I'm assuming setup state is still configured too right? What op state was it showing in your test? | 22:44:39 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | that's true, yea | 22:45:06 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | op is off, setup is configured | 22:45:47 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | Ah, so it is working then? | 22:45:56 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Pretty sure | 22:46:48 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I'll try to get this written into a test and commit the feature so I can demonstrate it more precisely :P | 22:47:10 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | gtg for now though | 22:47:24 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | (I think I just saw what I did wrong and it's very stupid but I'll be back later) | 22:53:12 |
| 20 Feb 2023 |
 @janne.hess:helsinki-systems.de | Seeing https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/215381, do you people think my dream of an interpreter-less initrd is achievable? | 09:03:57 |
| @janne.hess:helsinki-systems.de | (I know I'm asking for the opposite :D) | 09:04:08 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Janne Heß: Can you explain that dream? | 09:04:34 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Do you just mean no bash or python or any other shebang-isms required? | 09:04:47 |
| @janne.hess:helsinki-systems.de | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Janne Heß: Can you explain that dream? Having no interpreter at all (also no recovery shell obviously) to prevent any way of arbitrary code execution | 09:05:15 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | ahhh | 09:05:27 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Getting rid of bash seems... extremely unlikely | 09:05:38 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I guess the activation unit is the only one that uses bash though | 09:06:10 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | so maybe | 09:06:12 |
| @janne.hess:helsinki-systems.de | That was going to be my next question :D | 09:06:20 |
| @janne.hess:helsinki-systems.de | pkgs.writeCBin goes brrrrr | 09:06:25 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | it would impose a pretty substantial restriction though | 09:06:34 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | but a substantial restriction on a niche thing is probly ok? | 09:06:48 |
