!UNVBThoJtlIiVwiDjU:nixos.org

Staging

318 Members
Staging merges | Find currently open staging-next PRs: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Apr+sort%3Aupdated-desc+head%3Astaging-next+head%3Astaging-next-21.05+is%3Aopen109 Servers

Load older messages


SenderMessageTime
1 Nov 2021
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan BurnsIt looks like most of that is due to the transient sphinx error though, what do we do about that?19:53:11
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát The queue for x86_64-darwin was even empty now. So now I restarted all staging-next failures (in the last evaluation). 19:54:19
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI'll hope that tomorrow it will be clearer that there are no large build regressions.20:03:19
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan BurnsI also noticed the rubyPackages.nokogiri failure breaking a couple dependers, but couldn't see an obvious cause and have resigned to bisecting it. It'll probably take a long time so I wouldn't hold up the merge for it20:04:09
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan Burns * I also noticed the rubyPackages.nokogiri failure on x86_64-darwin breaking a couple dependers, but couldn't see an obvious cause and have resigned to bisecting it. It'll probably take a long time so I wouldn't hold up the merge for it20:04:24
@hexa:lossy.networkhexawe still have a ZHF upcoming 21:59:46
@hexa:lossy.networkhexafrom nov 5th22:01:14
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jThat might be a good time to drop this PR here ;) https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/14406122:11:36
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jAlso what's the general opinion about the coreutils/ZFS thing? I'd really love to have a coreutils without that current patch on 21.11. The ZFS folks are working on a workaround (which consists of just disabling the broken functionality on their side). Do you think this can slip into the last staging(-next) cycle among the removal of the patchß0?22:13:58
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_j * Also what's the general opinion about the coreutils/ZFS thing? I'd really love to have a coreutils without that current patch on 21.11. The ZFS folks are working on a workaround (which consists of just disabling the broken functionality on their side). Do you think this can slip into the last staging(-next) cycle among the removal of the patch?22:14:00
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI find it a bit problematic that ZFS version on OS is (generally) quite decoupled from the coreutils version in nixpkgs.23:00:12
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jWe could mention in the release notes that a reboot is highly recommended for ZFS users and only drop the patch after 21.11 is released?23:01:48
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_j * We could mention in the release notes that a reboot is highly recommended for ZFS users and only drop the patch after 21.11 is released (with 21.11 backport)?23:02:24
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI didn't mean just a reboot. The host may not even be NixOS.23:03:19
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jOh, right23:03:30
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_j So drop it on master after 21.11 is released and don't backport it? 23:04:59
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jthat gives ~6 months of time for users who are using the stable channels23:05:14
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátI think there are common use cases for nix(pkgs) to get flexible packages even on quite old/conservative systems. No idea how much of that might be ZFS... but hopefully the affected cases will be able to update their OS with the ZFS patch, too.23:05:57
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan BurnsCertainly doesn't help that red hat killed off centos 8 so we're going to have enterprise users on centos 7 until 202423:07:08
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátDo we know potential risks/down-sides from keeping the patch?23:08:50
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátIf it's not bad, the non-backporting approach sounds nice to me. Though I don't really know anything about this stuff :-)23:09:59
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátIt probably won't really help cases like CentOS 7, but it will give some buffer.23:10:42
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jI don't think RH supports ZFS on CentOS 7 anyway so users will use unofficial repos23:11:05
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_j

Probably:

# yum search zfs
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, keys, rhnplugin
This system is receiving updates from RHN Classic or Red Hat Satellite.
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
 * centos-sclo-rh: mirror1.hs-esslingen.de
 * centos-sclo-sclo: mirror.imt-systems.com
Warning: No matches found for: zfs
No matches found
23:11:21
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan Burnsheh, good pointt23:11:26
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátIIRC Red Hat officially supports XFS and maybe ext4, and experimentally btrfs.23:11:57
@r-burns:matrix.orgRyan BurnsI think we'll be able to make a more informed decision once ZFS releases their fix and we start to see how other distros are adopting it23:12:18
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír ČunátThey probably know better than us how their patches propagate.23:13:09
@vcunat:matrix.orgVladimír Čunát * They probably know better than us how their patches propagate to deployment.23:13:22
@janne.hess:helsinki-systems.dedas_jAlright, I'll ask on the workaround PR once it's merged23:16:10

There are no newer messages yet.


Back to Room ListRoom Version: 6