| 16 Feb 2025 |
 K900 | * And of course I fucked up the three hardest to reach machines in the apartment | 16:59:03 |
 ElvishJerricco | I wonder how much initrd would grow if we included nano by default | 17:00:14 |
| ElvishJerricco | if it's like, 100K, then we should probably just do that | 17:00:27 |
 infinisil | Whew, 48MB closure size for nano | 17:01:30 |
| infinisil | Didn't expect that | 17:01:36 |
| ElvishJerricco | Yea and I don't think we have file or ncurses in initrd already | 17:01:51 |
| ElvishJerricco | still, we'll only end up including a fraction of their files | 17:02:03 |
| infinisil | Alternatively, busybox has vi :P | 17:04:33 |
| infinisil | (and ed) | 17:04:38 |
| ElvishJerricco | oh gosh, our baseline initrd has ballooned to 20M | 17:05:08 |
| ElvishJerricco | did not realize that | 17:05:10 |
| ElvishJerricco | that's... worse than I would like | 17:05:19 |
| ElvishJerricco | * oh gosh, our baseline systemd initrd has ballooned to 20M | 17:05:26 |
| ElvishJerricco | yea, scripted is only 11M | 17:06:07 |
| ElvishJerricco | anyway yea nano only adds about 200K to the initrd size | 17:06:53 |
| ElvishJerricco | that's probably acceptable... But I may want to go hunting down what's got initrd so big these days | 17:07:08 |
| ElvishJerricco | (mind you, I don't actually know that nano works if all you do is add it to initrdBin) | 17:07:41 |
| ElvishJerricco | ok yea it's definitely not that simple. Error opening terminal: vt220. | 17:13:28 |
| 17 Feb 2025 |
| ElvishJerricco | Did this ever actually happen? | 18:19:38 |
 Arian | the decision happened. The result didn't | 18:50:41 |
 Ilan Joselevich (Kranzes) | Classico | 18:53:48 |
| Arian | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/216025. do nixos-containers break with networkd enabled? Or is the current impl just not ideal | 18:54:42 |
| Arian | if it’s the second; then I don’t think we have any blockers? | 18:54:51 |
| Arian | cc @m1cr0man:m1cr0man.com | 18:55:15 |
 m1cr0man | Iirc it is the second but I will test. Alas, that PR is broken when rebased due to changes needed in switch-to-configuration-ng. I wasn't able to complete it myself in the time I last had. See #nix-rfc-108:matrix.org | 19:22:08 |
| Arian | I don’t fully understand why we need to change stc. I naively assumed we could just call stc inside the container. but it has been a long time since I had all the context of 108 in my head | 19:25:36 |
 ma27 | In reply to @arianvp:matrix.org
I don’t fully understand why we need to change stc. I naively assumed we could just call stc inside the container. but it has been a long time since I had all the context of 108 in my head if you change the nixos config of a container, then sure you need to call stc inside the container.
if you change something else around the container (i.e. in the nspawn unit), you'll probably need to restart it. | 19:31:29 |
| Arian | why doesn’t that get handled by the systemd-nspawn@ unit already | 19:32:13 |
| Arian | it points to the nspawn config; which changes; triggers a restart | 19:32:23 |
| ma27 | because it depends on what has changed in the nspawn unit to know whether a restart or a reload (== call into the container to do stc) is needed, assuming we're talking about the 108 stuff.
it's been a while, so I don't remember the exact details though, sorry. | 19:37:21 |
