!PSmBFWNKoXmlQBzUQf:helsinki-systems.de

Stage 1 systemd

83 Members
systemd in NixOs's stage 1, replacing the current bash tooling https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/projects/5127 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
8 Feb 2023
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org I'm worried they're going to tell me to create initrd-fs-pre.target 22:13:31
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org I noted that Before=sysroot.mount doesn't even work because then systemd-fsck-root.service can be started simultaneously with systemd-hibernate-resume@.service, which seems broken. 22:14:52
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowers
In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
I'm worried they're going to tell me to create initrd-fs-pre.target
I mean that probably wouldn't be a bad thing to have
22:20:13
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgIt just seems pointless though22:24:54
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org The reason for the difference between local-fs.target and initrd-fs.target is so that initrd-switch-root can pull in initrd-fs and not local-fs, causing the initrd's local-fs units to be unmounted / stopped. But local-fs-pre.target is supposed to not have any Wants dependencies, isn't it? So stopping that for switch-root should be no problem? 22:29:27
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org * The reason for the difference between local-fs.target and initrd-fs.target is so that initrd-switch-root can pull in initrd-fs and not local-fs, causing the initrd's local-fs units to be unmounted / stopped. But local-fs-pre.target is supposed to not have any Wants dependencies, isn't it? So stopping that for switch-root when some relevant units are ordered before it should be no problem? 22:29:41
9 Feb 2023
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgOh btw this is ready for review now that 252.5 is in staging: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/20826903:23:37
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowers
In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Oh btw this is ready for review now that 252.5 is in staging: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/208269
I left a review with the only comment I had. I'll try running the PR on my own laptop after staging-next is merged, to ensure it doesn't regress anything on my system
17:08:08
12 Feb 2023
@kranzes:matrix.org@kranzes:matrix.orgHow's networking support going?00:08:59
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgI've been using it reliably. Seems better than scripted initrd's networking so far.00:09:31
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgThat's on my list of things to work on this weekend00:09:38
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgWould like to get it merged soon00:09:45
13 Feb 2023
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org Lily Foster: FYI apparently I didn't notice that they replaced my PR with one that has the problems I mentioned: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/26367 07:11:07
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org So I'm kinda frustrated, even though that will realistically solve the issue as far as they're concerned (since they seem to think literally only / and /usr will ever be mounted in initrd) 07:11:46
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowers
In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Lily Foster: FYI apparently I didn't notice that they replaced my PR with one that has the problems I mentioned: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/26367
Yeah I saw :(
11:58:30
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowers
In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
So I'm kinda frustrated, even though that will realistically solve the issue as far as they're concerned (since they seem to think literally only / and /usr will ever be mounted in initrd)
I don't even understand why something that just hides the problem rather than fixes it is preferred, since it was never articulated in the thread what is undesirable about a sync point or why the hack is better. Yu just sorta opened a new PR without waiting for your feedback
12:00:10
14 Feb 2023
@k900:0upti.meK900Bump: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/21050518:01:36
@k900:0upti.meK900Any reason I shouldn't just merge this?18:01:40
@k900:0upti.meK900It's been running fine on all of my machines18:01:47
@k900:0upti.meK900(and I'm cleaning up my pile of cherry-picks)18:01:55
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.org K900: I still think it should be based on chroot and realpath but I don't care enough to say it shouldn't be merged 18:08:19
@k900:0upti.meK900I'd rather run all of this after the chroot entirely tbh18:09:58
@k900:0upti.meK900But I'm not sure there's a good way to do that18:10:06
@k900:0upti.meK900Outside of wrapping systemd18:10:18
@k900:0upti.meK900Which is just ew18:10:24
@k900:0upti.meK900I'm still hoping to see the day where we don't need to do that on nixos-wsl18:11:29
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowers ElvishJerricco: I've been thinking about submitting a PR to systemd to canonicalize source for bind mounts (specifically so that they can be canonicalized from /sysroot in initrd). It would prevent us needing to artificially prepend /sysroot to only bind mounts from the NixOS side when generating the fstab for systemd-based initrd, and based on the old systemd PR I linked, they seem receptive to merging that functionality (or at least they did a few years ago). Thoughts? 18:40:02
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgwell the awkward thing is that bind mounts aren't the only problem18:41:26
@lily:lily.flowers@lily:lily.flowersYeah, was worried you were going to say that. We only handle it for bind mounts in NixOS though18:41:49
@elvishjerricco:matrix.org@elvishjerricco:matrix.orgoverlayfs, for instance, has the directory options that would need the same treatment18:41:44

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6