| 6 Feb 2024 |
rhelmot | Not particularly exotic but - somehow while messing with nixpkgs for FreeBSD I broke llvm tests on Linux. The failing test case seems to complain about the dot executable not being in the path? I can’t find any evidence of this having ever been a dependency or a disabled test, so what could have gone wrong? | 02:40:11 |
rhelmot | The change that broke it had nothing to do with llvm - I changed a var that should be a no-op on Linux for bison | 02:41:42 |
rhelmot | Note that this is the nix installed from Ubuntu apt, which doesn’t use the sandbox | 02:42:08 |
| 8 Feb 2024 |
raitobezarius | I'd ask if you can reproduce this with sandbox first | 18:53:37 |
raitobezarius | We don't really support sandboxless usecases | 18:53:41 |
rhelmot | I did in fact try with the sandbox and it worked perfectly | 19:00:33 |
rhelmot | Debian considered harmful I guess | 19:00:48 |
trofi | I'd say it's a nix's defaults bug that it allows for an unsandboxed runs so easily. | 22:59:25 |
trofi | I ended up disabling the fallback by default to guard users from the similar pitfalls:
- https://github.com/trofi/nix-guix-gentoo/blob/master/sys-apps/nix/files/nix-2.16-no-sandbox-fallback.patch
- https://github.com/trofi/nix-guix-gentoo/blob/master/sys-apps/nix/files/nix-2.16-no-sandbox-fallback-README.patch
| 23:00:22 |
raitobezarius | seems like something every other distro should copy | 23:11:14 |
| 10 Feb 2024 |
| symys joined the room. | 02:31:19 |
| 11 Feb 2024 |
raitobezarius | rhelmot: Would you mind if I had a summary of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/254801#issuecomment-1937118809 for posting a news entry on the FreeBSD support in Nix(pkgs)? | 12:44:18 |
raitobezarius | That seems quite awesome work ongoing | 12:44:35 |
raitobezarius | Also, if you could detail what's your plan for CI, let me know | 12:47:34 |
raitobezarius | I can see what's feasible in the side of nixpkgs infrastructure | 12:47:41 |
raitobezarius | Or recommend you potential venues for sponsoring ofc | 12:47:50 |
rhelmot | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org rhelmot: Would you mind if I had a summary of https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/254801#issuecomment-1937118809 for posting a news entry on the FreeBSD support in Nix(pkgs)? Sure! Do you just want me to write a summary of that one comment? Where is it being posted, for tone reasons? | 16:36:11 |
raitobezarius | #thisweek-feed:nixos.org #thisweek:nixos.org | 16:36:24 |
rhelmot | pog | 16:36:34 |
raitobezarius | you can either write your post yourself in a self service way by going to the 2nd channel | 16:36:37 |
rhelmot | Ok one sec | 16:36:38 |
raitobezarius | and I can ack it and it will be posted to the feed | 16:36:43 |
raitobezarius | if you want inspiration: https://matrix.org/category/this-week-in-matrix/ | 16:36:59 |
rhelmot | Enhanced FreeBSD support for nix and nixpkgs is on its way thanks to rhelmot and artemist! As of this week, nix support for sandboxed building with FreeBSD jails is an open pull request, along with a fully fledged stdenv for native use of nix on FreeBSD. Progress is ongoing to support desktop environments and a full FreeBSD-based nixos platform.
Due to a review of the FreeBSD backwards compatibility capabilities, the platform tuple was able to change to drop the major version number. Packages will be built by default for the lowest supported version of FreeBSD (14 at present), but can be built to take advantage of newer features by specifying build parameters.
For more information, check out https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/254801#issuecomment-1937118809 | 17:09:19 |
rhelmot | Does that sound good raitobezarius | 17:09:39 |
rhelmot | My hope for CI was to be able to do a fully-featured set of auto builders that has feature parity with the Linux stuff. | 17:12:27 |
raitobezarius | very good rhelmot ! | 18:33:18 |
raitobezarius | rhelmot: let me know if you want me to post it | 18:41:07 |
rhelmot | Yes, please post it | 19:45:49 |
raitobezarius | In reply to @rhelmot:matrix.org Yes, please post it done! | 19:48:35 |