!lymvtcwDJ7ZA9Npq:lix.systems

Lix Development

414 Members
(Technical) development of Lix, the package manager, a Nix implementation. Please be mindful of ongoing technical conversations in this channel.139 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
27 Jul 2025
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusdid you notice files changing on the fly or not mid-builds?16:03:49
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius emily fwiw, i'm redoing the testing stuff 16:04:10
@k900:0upti.meK900 What 16:04:22
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusi'm going to split into a sandboxed-ca.sh and unsandboxed-ca.sh test suite16:04:22
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilybecause of issues with Darwin sandbox testing?16:04:36
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius
In reply to @k900:0upti.me
What
https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/commit/b469c6509ba616da6df8a27e4ccb205a877c66c9
16:04:36
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
because of issues with Darwin sandbox testing?
because there's no such thing as building in a diverted store with Darwin
16:04:49
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius and also because we cannot do sandbox indeed 16:05:00
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily diverted store = chroot store? 16:05:10
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusyep16:05:13
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusi got bitten by trying to test if repair worked on darwin as well like this yesterday16:05:24
@aloisw:julia0815.dealoisw
In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
so broken symlinks would surface as an exception and break the setup
I think "broken symlink" may actually have been about the file being a symlink which is bound and the target not existing in the sandbox.
16:05:39
@k900:0upti.meK900
In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
https://git.lix.systems/lix-project/lix/commit/b469c6509ba616da6df8a27e4ccb205a877c66c9
No
16:05:48
@k900:0upti.meK900 But I was worried it could happen 16:05:53
@emilazy:matrix.orgemily I don't know the threat model of the CI builders but it would be really nice to have sandbox testing by way of _NIX_TEST_NO_SANDBOX=1. 16:06:06
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusI wonder if we should just build a test for it16:06:08
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
I don't know the threat model of the CI builders but it would be really nice to have sandbox testing by way of _NIX_TEST_NO_SANDBOX=1.
CI builders lives themselves in a user namespace
16:06:21
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusor on the baremetal for some of them16:06:26
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilymacOS16:06:27
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyno such thing16:06:30
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusah yes16:06:31
@k900:0upti.meK900 The actual problem this fixed was some convoluted symlink setup that I forgot why it's like that 16:06:33
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusfor macOS, they live on the baremetal16:06:42
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusthere's no true threat model16:06:44
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyso every tested build runs on persistent bare metal and the Nix sandbox isn't even turned on?16:07:00
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezarius
In reply to @emilazy:matrix.org
so every tested build runs on persistent bare metal and the Nix sandbox isn't even turned on?
I'm like almost certain that the Nix sandbox isn't even turned on on these builders yep
16:07:19
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariusBasically, all of this is blocked on Darwin sysadmin16:07:27
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyit's not because if it was you'd have caught the UDS regression 😆16:07:33
@raitobezarius:matrix.orgraitobezariussowwy16:07:42
@emilazy:matrix.orgemilyeven ofborg insisted on the sandbox to remove the allow list of users on Darwin :P16:07:46

Show newer messages


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 10