-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.8k
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
nixops_plugged: attrset of nixops builds, with varying plugin sets included #281883
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have mixed feelings about this, because NixOps isn't subject to a lot of change. Did a plugin break?
aws = [ "nixops-aws" ]; | ||
digitalocean = [ "nixops-digitalocean" ]; | ||
gce = [ "nixops-gce" ]; | ||
hercules-ci = [ "nixops-hercules-ci" ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This one is commercially supported and is typically used alongside other plugins.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note that it's still fully available in nixops_unstable
, via nixops_plugged.full
.
Thank you @roberth Co-authored-by: Robert Hensing <roberth@users.noreply.github.com>
The dependency pins in the forest of plugins are vulnerable to the constant flow of Python dependency changes. In this case, |
That's a fair point about dependencies, I suppose. I don't like the idea of giving up on fixing such plugins, but that's besides the point. Putting that aside, I don't like any of these packages really. Could we make the composition more convenient? I think |
Neither do I -- but the point is that the set of people who can fix all the plugins is much smaller than the set of people who can't. So the status quo is that the rest are essentially prevented from using |
If you mean dropping the package set entirely, and mandating the use of Or do you mean that we just don't need the |
@roberth, what are your consederations about the PR now, do you think? |
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/3428 |
@roberth, a gentle reminder : -) |
Thanks. Was just working on #292099, which achieves like 80% of your goal. It doubles down on
|
Description of changes
As
nixops_unstable
receives very little maintenance, it's important to keep the remnants working for as many people as possible.The current
nixops_unstable
is extremely brittle, as it includes every plugin available -- which means it breaks very easily.This PR provides an attrset with a bunch of specialised nixops builds, for various backends, as well as the full and minimal options.
This way people can fix whatever plugins they care about and get things rolling, without being forced to deal with plugins they don't care and have no context about.
Things done
nix.conf
? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxed
sandbox = true
nix-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.