| 9 Feb 2023 |
 @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Oh btw this is ready for review now that 252.5 is in staging: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/208269 | 03:23:37 |
 @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Oh btw this is ready for review now that 252.5 is in staging: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/208269 I left a review with the only comment I had. I'll try running the PR on my own laptop after staging-next is merged, to ensure it doesn't regress anything on my system | 17:08:08 |
| 12 Feb 2023 |
 @kranzes:matrix.org | How's networking support going? | 00:08:59 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | I've been using it reliably. Seems better than scripted initrd's networking so far. | 00:09:31 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | That's on my list of things to work on this weekend | 00:09:38 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Would like to get it merged soon | 00:09:45 |
| 13 Feb 2023 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | Lily Foster: FYI apparently I didn't notice that they replaced my PR with one that has the problems I mentioned: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/26367 | 07:11:07 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | So I'm kinda frustrated, even though that will realistically solve the issue as far as they're concerned (since they seem to think literally only / and /usr will ever be mounted in initrd) | 07:11:46 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
Lily Foster: FYI apparently I didn't notice that they replaced my PR with one that has the problems I mentioned: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/26367 Yeah I saw :( | 11:58:30 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @elvishjerricco:matrix.org
So I'm kinda frustrated, even though that will realistically solve the issue as far as they're concerned (since they seem to think literally only / and /usr will ever be mounted in initrd) I don't even understand why something that just hides the problem rather than fixes it is preferred, since it was never articulated in the thread what is undesirable about a sync point or why the hack is better. Yu just sorta opened a new PR without waiting for your feedback | 12:00:10 |
| 14 Feb 2023 |
 K900 | Bump: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/210505 | 18:01:36 |
| K900 | Any reason I shouldn't just merge this? | 18:01:40 |
| K900 | It's been running fine on all of my machines | 18:01:47 |
| K900 | (and I'm cleaning up my pile of cherry-picks) | 18:01:55 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | K900: I still think it should be based on chroot and realpath but I don't care enough to say it shouldn't be merged | 18:08:19 |
| K900 | I'd rather run all of this after the chroot entirely tbh | 18:09:58 |
| K900 | But I'm not sure there's a good way to do that | 18:10:06 |
| K900 | Outside of wrapping systemd | 18:10:18 |
| K900 | Which is just ew | 18:10:24 |
| K900 | I'm still hoping to see the day where we don't need to do that on nixos-wsl | 18:11:29 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | ElvishJerricco: I've been thinking about submitting a PR to systemd to canonicalize source for bind mounts (specifically so that they can be canonicalized from /sysroot in initrd). It would prevent us needing to artificially prepend /sysroot to only bind mounts from the NixOS side when generating the fstab for systemd-based initrd, and based on the old systemd PR I linked, they seem receptive to merging that functionality (or at least they did a few years ago). Thoughts? | 18:40:02 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | well the awkward thing is that bind mounts aren't the only problem | 18:41:26 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | Yeah, was worried you were going to say that. We only handle it for bind mounts in NixOS though | 18:41:49 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | overlayfs, for instance, has the directory options that would need the same treatment | 18:41:44 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys path | 18:42:13 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | this isn't to say we shouldn't improve bind mounts | 18:41:56 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | * I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys absolute path | 18:42:26 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | just saying it's awkward | 18:42:02 |
| @lily:lily.flowers | In reply to @lily:lily.flowers
I mean theoretically I could just make it do that for any mount if the source is a non-/dev and non-/sys absolute path (Idk if there are scenarios where that would also Do The Wrong Thing too though) | 18:42:59 |
| @elvishjerricco:matrix.org | well the overlayfs example has the problem in the mount options, not the device or mountpoint | 18:43:19 |
