[Backport release-24.05] zfs: 2.2.5 -> 2.2.6 #340382
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
github-actions
bot
added
the
6.topic: nixos
amarshall
changed the title
adamcstephens
approved these changes
Sep 8, 2024
(cherry picked from commit 52a7570)
This removes the need to micromanage this value, instead we simply find the correct one based on the existing kernelCompatible attr (though that is now a function). This not only simplifies ZFS upgrades, but also whenever Kernel versions are removed due to EOL. (cherry picked from commit 7fa05c7) (cherry picked from commit 34e1748) (cherry picked from commit d174eca)
- This release brings official support for Kernel 6.10 - Also update zfs_unstable as it would otherwise lag behind - Upstream now links `zpool` completion, so only do so on older zfs (since we still need to support 2.1.x) Changelog: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/releases/tag/zfs-2.2.6 (cherry picked from commit 636134b)
(cherry picked from commit 9bd0b5a)
(cherry picked from commit cf572e0)
amarshall
force-pushed
the
zfs-update-24.05
branch
from
624bc20 to
ba61046
Compare
|
Result of 4 packages marked as broken and skipped:
98 packages built:
|
|
I’m comfortable moving forward whenever you are. |
|
All good on my end. |
|
I built Repro: |
|
Indeed unexpected. The problem is that 24.05, unlike unstable, does not set an alternative pname for linux-libre. Oy. I’ll have a PR later today. |
|
Additionally, I would generally recommend against using latestCompatibleLinuxPackages at all—your Kernel can (and will) go backwards at times. |
This is good advice; recent wifi chipsets seem to be quite dependent on having a newer kernel version, and the recent downgrade to 6.6 on |
14 tasks
|
I'm going to revert the commit. |
|
You prefaced this with being on the fence about but next time, please don't backport such changes. They're bound to run into issues like this and it's better to just eat the minor maintenance overhead for the next few months (isn't that like 2 PRs max anyways?). We really should not break stable like this. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of changes
I’m on the fence about backporting the changes to
latestCompatibleLinuxPackages—it does make backporting and maintenance a lot easier. It should also ease backports for Kernel updates and removals as it decouples the ZFS drv from them somewhat. My hesitation is simply that it is a more “substantial” change.Leaving this draft for a bit for discussion re above and also to let 2.2.6 sit on unstable for a bit before backporting.
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.