NixOS Incus and LXC - Public Room Timeline

	NixOS Incus and LXC	55 Members
	lxc, lxd, incus discussions related to NixOS	19 Servers

Load older messages

Sender	Message	Time
6 May 2026
Tom	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp0l84fSeP0&t=2067s probably 6.0.7 rather shortly, 7.1.0 at the end of the month and 7.0.1 probably around that same time	01:27:01
7 May 2026
adamcstephens	so uhhh... are these security vulnerabilities going to be fixed in v6?	12:33:14
adamcstephens	if i have to DIY patches to an "LTS", I'm inclined to drop supporting it.	12:34:33
Tom	( https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/incus-7-0-lts-has-been-released/26641/12?u=tomh ) okay i guess that means the incus-lts package on 25.11 will receive a version bump at some point the remaining question is then what (if anything) we'll do with the incus package on 25.11 a) ignore it b) mark it vurlnerable c) backport 7.0 d) combine b) and c) and backport it as incus-lts7 (the primary proplem i have with that is that further 7.0 bumps wouldn't be done via the backport bot)	21:02:46
Tom	uh, wait, we could move `pkgs/by-name/in/incus/lts.nix` to `pkgs/by-name/in/incus/lts6.nix` and then add 7.0 to pkgs/by-name/in/incus/lts.nix	21:08:44
adamcstephens	bump latest to 7.0 on 25.11, and leave LTS until if/when upstream patches v6.	21:14:20
adamcstephens	it's not worth adding a third release for the lifetime of 25.11	21:15:16
adamcstephens	i'd honestly ignore 25.11+latest if it wasn't for the security patches	21:16:02
Tom	yeah, i also noticed i did mess up the filenames up above, i'll do the backport then	21:16:40
Tom	https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/517816	22:02:12
11 May 2026
Tom	incus v7 has now reached nixos-25.11 (nixos-unstable not yet, even though that was merged two days earlier :D)	15:21:16
Tom	and quite surprisingly for me https://github.com/zabbly/incus/tree/stable hasn't been touched since	15:22:25
adamcstephens	looks like the build problem may have been fixed on unstable, so hopefully it'll move soon.	16:57:54
12 May 2026
Tom	(yeah, nixos-unstable has just advanced. So 7.0 is now also available there)	15:04:33
	Bart joined the room.	18:09:16
16 May 2026
Tom	When rebuilding the unstable nixos incus image there is currently the follwing failure: error: The option `programs.command-not-found.enable' has conflicting definition values: - In `/nix/store/wy93nw7bgjiy88dvpxfsj3wq8wgmzl35-nixos/nixos/nixos/modules/profiles/minimal.nix': false - In `/nix/store/wy93nw7bgjiy88dvpxfsj3wq8wgmzl35-nixos/nixos/nixos/modules/programs/command-not-found/command-not-found.nix': true Use `lib.mkForce value` or `lib.mkDefault value` to change the priority on any of these definitions.	15:17:11
Tom	There is the following PR https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/512785	15:17:57
Tom	* When rebuilding the unstable nixos incus image with the default config there is currently the follwing failure: error: The option `programs.command-not-found.enable' has conflicting definition values: - In `/nix/store/wy93nw7bgjiy88dvpxfsj3wq8wgmzl35-nixos/nixos/nixos/modules/profiles/minimal.nix': false - In `/nix/store/wy93nw7bgjiy88dvpxfsj3wq8wgmzl35-nixos/nixos/nixos/modules/programs/command-not-found/command-not-found.nix': true Use `lib.mkForce value` or `lib.mkDefault value` to change the priority on any of these definitions.	15:19:32
18 May 2026
adamcstephens	now that nspawn tests are first class, i'm tempted to spike out switching the incus tests to them. especially for aarch64 that could be a huge win (since aarch64 nested virtualization is a shit show)	13:52:06
hexa	that may or may not work given the limitations nspawn brings	13:58:48
hexa	in most cases you just replace nodes with containers though	13:58:59
adamcstephens	i'm not too familiar with nspawn, any limitations come to mind that you think could be a problem?	14:40:12
hexa	no kernel specific things, no setuid (no switching), no gui stuff, no container<->vm network interaction	14:46:18
adamcstephens	kernel could be a problem, yeah	15:22:11
25 May 2026
Tom	(https://github.com/lxc/lxc-ci/pull/992)	16:27:11
Tom	adamcstephens: looking at the job i'm wondering wheter the logic should be changed to a `if [ "$RELEASE" = "nixos-25.11" ]; then` as not do the repackaging for 26.05 and onward? (i'm currently assuming that this wasn't done for 25.11 because that would've required changes? It's not explained anywhere as far as i can tell) https://github.com/lxc/lxc-ci/blob/c76d66f24ec00222932431bb922e338d6ca20b01/jenkins/jobs/image-nixos.yaml#L44-L58	16:53:14
Tom	* adamcstephens: looking at the job i'm wondering wheter the logic should be changed to a `if [ "$RELEASE" = "release-25.11" ]; then` as not do the repackaging for 26.05 and onward? (i'm currently assuming that this wasn't done for 25.11 because that would've required changes? It's not explained anywhere as far as i can tell) https://github.com/lxc/lxc-ci/blob/c76d66f24ec00222932431bb922e338d6ca20b01/jenkins/jobs/image-nixos.yaml#L44-L58	16:55:27
Tom	* adamcstephens: looking at the job i'm wondering wheter the logic should be changed to a `if [ "$RELEASE" = "25.11" ]; then` as not do the repackaging for 26.05 and onward? (i'm currently assuming that this wasn't done for 25.11 because that would've required changes? It's not explained anywhere as far as i can tell) https://github.com/lxc/lxc-ci/blob/c76d66f24ec00222932431bb922e338d6ca20b01/jenkins/jobs/image-nixos.yaml#L44-L58	16:55:49
adamcstephens	it was done for unstable only as an initial test of using purely our images. it's been a success so yes, setting != 25.11 sounds right and then we can remove completely the distrobuilder stuff when retiring it	18:23:54
adamcstephens	weird that there's no PR associated with this commit https://github.com/lxc/lxc-ci/commit/999a75491447910bcc6ea20be4928cc584600bb7	18:33:56

Show newer messages

Back to Room ListRoom Version: 10