Skip to content

systemd: 239.20190219 -> 241.20190221 #56184

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

Conversation

Mic92
Copy link
Member

@Mic92 Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@Mic92 Mic92 requested a review from fpletz February 22, 2019 08:52
@@ -54,6 +35,8 @@ in stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
coreutils # meson calls date, stat etc.
glibcLocales
patchelf getent m4

(python3Packages.python.withPackages ( ps: with ps; [ python3Packages.lxml ]))
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I should have a look if splicing works as expected in the cross-compiling case. However I think it only did not work before because the python env was stringified into preConfigure.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok. Splicing did not work. I explicitly changed it back to buildPackages

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

cc @lheckemann in case this is relevant for 19.03.

@fpletz
Copy link
Member

fpletz commented Feb 22, 2019

I was in the process of preparing systemd 240. 😄 I'm not sure whether we can get enough testing done for a systemd bump until 19.03. I'll test later today in any case.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

I actually used your branch as a base for my rebase.
239 might be fine as well.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Feb 22, 2019

Do you know about any notable down-sides of leaving 19.03 on 239?

@GrahamcOfBorg GrahamcOfBorg added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ 10.rebuild-linux: 5001+ labels Feb 22, 2019
@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

A bit more effort when backporting fixes. Systemd usually has a systemd-stable fork, that backports stuff and we also start pulling patches from debian, which are currently on systemd v240. And maybe missing out some features. Also I have not found something in the NEWS file that would be super relevant for the next release.

@Mic92 Mic92 requested a review from infinisil as a code owner February 22, 2019 09:24
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ in
PRETTY_NAME="NixOS ${cfg.version} (${cfg.codeName})"
LOGO="nix-snowflake"
HOME_URL="https://nixos.org/"
DOCUMENTATION_URL="https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/index.html"
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@GrahamcOfBorg GrahamcOfBorg added 6.topic: nixos Issues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOS 8.has: module (update) This PR changes an existing module in `nixos/` labels Feb 22, 2019
@andir
Copy link
Member

andir commented Feb 22, 2019

A few months ago I attempted to rebase our v239 onto the stable branch. It turned out to be very intrusive. Back then I wrote two additional changes for our systemd for:

andir/systemd@300073d
andir/systemd@f0afc7c

Specifially the generator change was required to fix some of the expected behaviour on NixOS.

I have not checked if those are still required or should still be applied thought.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

@andir I suppose I can test this by running fsck.nix?

@andir
Copy link
Member

andir commented Feb 22, 2019

@Mic92 yes, the fsck test should show that error. Just verified that.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Feb 22, 2019

I will have a look into that.

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member

While this doesn't seem to be ready per se, I think we should backport this once done since maintaining an older version for 19.03 will not be any fun.

@@ -54,6 +35,8 @@ in stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
coreutils # meson calls date, stat etc.
glibcLocales
patchelf getent m4

(buildPackages.python3Packages.python.withPackages ( ps: with ps; [ python3Packages.lxml ]))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
(buildPackages.python3Packages.python.withPackages ( ps: with ps; [ python3Packages.lxml ]))
(buildPackages.python3Packages.python.withPackages ( ps: with ps; [ lxml ]))

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or just buildPackages.python3.withPackages (ps: [ps.lxml])?

@lheckemann
Copy link
Member

Is there anything preventing merging this?

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented Mar 7, 2019

@lheckemann yes: #56184 (comment)

@uvNikita
Copy link
Contributor

uvNikita commented Mar 8, 2019

#48749 should be fixed in v240 according to @arianvp. Would be nice to get it backported to 19.03 :)

@arianvp
Copy link
Member

arianvp commented Mar 10, 2019

Worst case we can backport the cgroups patch on the v239 branch if this doesn't land into 19.03

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Mar 10, 2019

That seems quite a likely outcome to me, given the current state – I hear of almost no NixOS system running on the new version and we only have three weeks before release.

@qolii

This comment has been minimized.

@andir

This comment has been minimized.

@qolii

This comment has been minimized.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented May 7, 2019

242 is out, it would be nice if we could get it done, I was also seeing a bug that is fixed in the current version.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented May 8, 2019

I think @andir has also made some progress on this.

@andir
Copy link
Member

andir commented May 8, 2019

I did run a nixpkgs release build of v241 + the two patches that I mentioned above (a07cf20 / https://github.com/andir/nixpkgs/tree/nixos-v241).

Looking at the results of my hydra build (https://hydra.h4ck.space/jobset/nixpkgs/systemd-241-full ipv6-only, sorry) it doesn't look too bad.

The failing tests are below. I am not entirely convinced that those really fail because of systemd. That is something I want to verify in the coming days.

I did a brief rebase for v242 but so far it stops very early in some meson scripts. Probably nothing big just have to sit down and take a bit of time for that. My WIP there can be seen at https://github.com/andir/systemd/tree/nixos-v242

Failed 	157887 	tests.ceph.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-All-in-one-basic-ceph-cluster 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157979 	tests.gdk-pixbuf.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-gdk-pixbuf 	x86_64-linux
Dependency failed 	157815 	tests.minio.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-minio 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157875 	tests.neo4j.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-neo4j 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157703 	tests.ostree.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-ostree 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157956 	tests.slurm.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-slurm 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157899 	tests.flatpak.x86_64-linux 	15h ago 	vm-test-run-flatpak 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157754 	tests.gocd-agent.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-gocd-agent 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157938 	tests.kubernetes.dns.multinode.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-kubernetes-dns-multinode 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157830 	tests.kubernetes.dns.singlenode.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-kubernetes-dns-singlenode 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157740 	tests.kubernetes.rbac.multinode.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-kubernetes-rbac-multinode 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157838 	tests.kubernetes.rbac.singlenode.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-kubernetes-rbac-singlenode 	x86_64-linux
Dependency failed 	157701 	tests.mesos.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-mesos 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157688 	tests.mysqlReplication.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-mysql-replication 	x86_64-linux
Dependency failed 	157755 	tests.postgis.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-postgis 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157735 	tests.prometheus-exporters.x86_64-linux 	16h ago 	vm-test-run-prometheus-exporters 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157686 	tests.radicale.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-radicale 	x86_64-linux
Failed 	157819 	tests.taskserver.x86_64-linux 	17h ago 	vm-test-run-taskserver 	x86_64-linux

@andir andir mentioned this pull request May 11, 2019
10 tasks
@Mic92
Copy link
Member Author

Mic92 commented May 31, 2019

superseeded by #61321

@Mic92 Mic92 closed this May 31, 2019
@Mic92 Mic92 deleted the systemd-241 branch July 23, 2021 08:27
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
6.topic: nixos Issues or PRs affecting NixOS modules, or package usability issues specific to NixOS 8.has: module (update) This PR changes an existing module in `nixos/` 8.has: package (update) This PR updates a package to a newer version 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ 10.rebuild-linux: 5001+
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet