| 2 Sep 2022 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | As a bonus, it would remove the need for this wrapper flake to get pure evaluation | 14:50:43 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | Another bonus: This could make it possible to be compatible with nixosConfigurations and nixos-rebuild and so on | 15:14:47 |
tpw_rules | ^ | 16:46:57 |
Linux Hackerman | Yeah, I've previously suggested this but it wasn't a direction Zhaofeng Li was particularly interested in :/ | 16:47:39 |
Linux Hackerman | I'm currently doing a hack like
nixosConfigurations = lib.mapAttrs (name: config: let
nodeNixpkgs = self.outputs.colmena.meta.nodeNixpkgs.${name} or self.outputs.colmena.meta.nixpkgs;
nodeNixos = import (nodeNixpkgs.path + "/nixos/lib/eval-config.nix");
in nodeNixos {
modules = [
self.outputs.colmena.defaults
config
inputs.colmena.nixosModules.deploymentOptions
{
_module.args.name = name;
_module.args.nodes = self.outputs.nixosConfigurations;
nixpkgs.overlays = [ nodeNixpkgs.lib.flakeOverlay (import ./overlay.nix) ];
}
];
inherit (nodeNixpkgs) system;
}
) (builtins.removeAttrs self.outputs.colmena ["meta" "defaults"]);
to be able to get at least an approximation of the configs (enough to be able to build it in hydra, for example)
| 16:48:55 |
Linux Hackerman | but I think sooner or later I'll be switching to another tool that actually wants to support this, possibly deploy-rs | 16:49:18 |
Linux Hackerman | Of course now I can't find the old messages where we discussed this... I guess it was before I moved homeservers | 16:53:28 |
Zhaofeng Li | I would be on-board if the Colmena flake is generating the nixosConfigurations-like structure with Colmena-specific metadata (this is similar to the evaluator idea that @blaggacao is proposing) rather than consuming an existing nixosConfigurations. We would need some versioning/schema contract to ensure compatibility between the flake output and the Colmena executable. | 18:26:56 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | You could just tell the users that the colmena binary has to be from the exact same version as the hive expression | 18:28:22 |
@yuka:yuka.dev |
And the colmena package itself could be re-exported to my flake. So that I do nix run .#colmena apply and it uses the colmena version pinned in my flake.
| 18:28:59 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | And yes, the hive expression should output nixosConfigurations-like structure, the input would be similar to what outputs.colmena is currently | 18:29:50 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | So you mean something like:
mkFlake ...
->
nixosConfigurations = ...
__colmena = ...
| 18:29:51 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | * So you mean something like: ?
```
mkFlake ...
```
->
```
nixosConfigurations = ...
__colmena = ...
``` | 18:30:45 |
Zhaofeng Li | To further expand on that, consuming the existing nixosConfigurations is problematic, since Colmena needs to insert two things into the configuration: Modules (deployment.* options and configs) as well as module arguments (name and nodes which allows you to refer to configurations of other nodes in the cluster). This is in part following the design decisions of NixOps and morph. Inserting them cannot be cleanly done in case of nixosConfigurations which contains complete, evaluated configurations rather than individual NixOS modules.
We could remove this need and make the user specify the deployment.* configs externally, outside the NixOS configuration. This is the approach that deploy-rs takes (the deploy output). The downside is two-fold:
- The level of configuration composition possible will be limited. As an example, I set
deployment.tags = [ "routers" ]; in my router module so enabling it will automatically make colmena apply --on @routers deploy to this node. Additionally, I use the added nodes argument extensively in my configuration to set up a WireGuard mesh and iBGP peerings between my nodes.
- The effect Colmena can have on the target node configuration will be limited. For instance, Colmena creates the
${name}-key.service for each secret file defined in deployment.keys, which will no longer be possible. deploy-rs uses a deploy binary copied alongside the profile to implement activation and other features.
The end result is a level of functionality noticeably different from "normal" Colmena that would necessitate a lot of documentation changes and still be confusing to users.
| 18:31:10 |
Linux Hackerman | My interpretation is
hive = { defaults = ...; meta = ...; nodeA = ...; };
nixosConfigurations = (colmena.evalHive self.outputs.hive).nixosConfigurations;
| 18:31:48 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | Even better! | 18:32:22 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | In reply to @zhaofeng:zhaofeng.li
To further expand on that, consuming the existing nixosConfigurations is problematic, since Colmena needs to insert two things into the configuration: Modules (deployment.* options and configs) as well as module arguments (name and nodes which allows you to refer to configurations of other nodes in the cluster). This is in part following the design decisions of NixOps and morph. Inserting them cannot be cleanly done in case of nixosConfigurations which contains complete, evaluated configurations rather than individual NixOS modules.
We could remove this need and make the user specify the deployment.* configs externally, outside the NixOS configuration. This is the approach that deploy-rs takes (the deploy output). The downside is two-fold:
- The level of configuration composition possible will be limited. As an example, I set
deployment.tags = [ "routers" ]; in my router module so enabling it will automatically make colmena apply --on @routers deploy to this node. Additionally, I use the added nodes argument extensively in my configuration to set up a WireGuard mesh and iBGP peerings between my nodes.
- The effect Colmena can have on the target node configuration will be limited. For instance, Colmena creates the
${name}-key.service for each secret file defined in deployment.keys, which will no longer be possible. deploy-rs uses a deploy binary copied alongside the profile to implement activation and other features.
The end result is a level of functionality noticeably different from "normal" Colmena that would necessitate a lot of documentation changes and still be confusing to users.
No no, inserting the modules is fine. Just what I don't like is that the version of those modules is not pinned in my flake, and thus my flake alone is not sufficient anymore for evaluating the config. | 18:32:59 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | I think it's vetter to avoid the indirection via the cli if possible. | 18:33:48 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | But, I don't know if that may break the paraleval | 18:34:01 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | (which may be the main current justification) | 18:34:24 |
Linux Hackerman | In reply to @zhaofeng:zhaofeng.li
To further expand on that, consuming the existing nixosConfigurations is problematic, since Colmena needs to insert two things into the configuration: Modules (deployment.* options and configs) as well as module arguments (name and nodes which allows you to refer to configurations of other nodes in the cluster). This is in part following the design decisions of NixOps and morph. Inserting them cannot be cleanly done in case of nixosConfigurations which contains complete, evaluated configurations rather than individual NixOS modules.
We could remove this need and make the user specify the deployment.* configs externally, outside the NixOS configuration. This is the approach that deploy-rs takes (the deploy output). The downside is two-fold:
- The level of configuration composition possible will be limited. As an example, I set
deployment.tags = [ "routers" ]; in my router module so enabling it will automatically make colmena apply --on @routers deploy to this node. Additionally, I use the added nodes argument extensively in my configuration to set up a WireGuard mesh and iBGP peerings between my nodes.
- The effect Colmena can have on the target node configuration will be limited. For instance, Colmena creates the
${name}-key.service for each secret file defined in deployment.keys, which will no longer be possible. deploy-rs uses a deploy binary copied alongside the profile to implement activation and other features.
The end result is a level of functionality noticeably different from "normal" Colmena that would necessitate a lot of documentation changes and still be confusing to users.
- The
nodes argument doesn't require colmena though. nixosConfigurations can reference self.outputs.nixosConfigurations to get at other hosts.
- (covers
deployment.tags as well) I'd prefer for there to be e.g. inputs.colmena.nixosModules.default that doesn't just supply the options (as inputs.colmena.nixosModules.deploymentOptions does), but also their implementation. I don't see (feel free to point it out) what needs to be injected there that isn't available at "any" evaluation time -- with nixops's model of resources that are also managed by the tool, that makes sense, but given that colmena doesn't "create" machines or otherwise manage resources (sensible choice IMO!) it's not necessary.
| 18:35:45 |
Linux Hackerman | In reply to @zhaofeng:zhaofeng.li
To further expand on that, consuming the existing nixosConfigurations is problematic, since Colmena needs to insert two things into the configuration: Modules (deployment.* options and configs) as well as module arguments (name and nodes which allows you to refer to configurations of other nodes in the cluster). This is in part following the design decisions of NixOps and morph. Inserting them cannot be cleanly done in case of nixosConfigurations which contains complete, evaluated configurations rather than individual NixOS modules.
We could remove this need and make the user specify the deployment.* configs externally, outside the NixOS configuration. This is the approach that deploy-rs takes (the deploy output). The downside is two-fold:
- The level of configuration composition possible will be limited. As an example, I set
deployment.tags = [ "routers" ]; in my router module so enabling it will automatically make colmena apply --on @routers deploy to this node. Additionally, I use the added nodes argument extensively in my configuration to set up a WireGuard mesh and iBGP peerings between my nodes.
- The effect Colmena can have on the target node configuration will be limited. For instance, Colmena creates the
${name}-key.service for each secret file defined in deployment.keys, which will no longer be possible. deploy-rs uses a deploy binary copied alongside the profile to implement activation and other features.
The end result is a level of functionality noticeably different from "normal" Colmena that would necessitate a lot of documentation changes and still be confusing to users.
*
- The
nodes argument doesn't require colmena though. nixosConfigurations can reference self.outputs.nixosConfigurations to get at other hosts.
- (covers
deployment.tags as well) I'd prefer for there to be e.g. inputs.colmena.nixosModules.default that doesn't just supply the options (as inputs.colmena.nixosModules.deploymentOptions does), but also their implementation. I don't see (feel free to point it out if I'm missing something) what needs to be injected there that isn't available at "any" evaluation time -- with nixops's model of resources that are also managed by the tool, that makes sense, but given that colmena doesn't "create" machines or otherwise manage resources (sensible choice IMO!) it's not necessary.
| 18:35:53 |
David Arnold (blaggacao) | (I might be totally wrong, too) | 18:36:10 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | In reply to @blaggacao:matrix.org But, I don't know if that may break the paraleval I don't think that would be influenced by this kind of change | 18:38:13 |
Linux Hackerman | same | 18:38:38 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | I will try to prepare a PR that solves most of the problem without too many changes | 18:38:40 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | If that's fine with y'all | 18:38:51 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | first not even focusing on producing a nixosConfigurations, but giving a first stepping stone in that direction | 18:39:14 |
Zhaofeng Li | In reply to @yuka:yuka.dev You could just tell the users that the colmena binary has to be from the exact same version as the hive expression There still need to be some kind of versioning and/or a contract, because David Arnold (blaggacao) is making a framework (std) that will emit this structure with its own logic | 18:41:35 |
@yuka:yuka.dev | I mean, how is the current interface versioned? | 18:42:16 |