grafana-alloy: init at 1.0.0 #306048
grafana-alloy: init at 1.0.0 #306048
Conversation
Sure. Do you also want to become a maintainer of this package? |
|
Would very much like to see this merged soon :) |
|
Also, not sure if this is correct, but having fixed some stuff with the package locally, it looks like it requires >8GB of |
|
It's not just a matter of pressing the merge button. Ongoing maintenance, as well as proper testing of this (and future releases) is important, and so far neither me nor @emilylange got a chance to test it, there's no VM tests and no thoughts around a NixOS module. Additionally, the initial PR author adding this package didn't react on the question on whether they also want to maintain it, nor update it to pass CI. Yes, if you intend to maintain it too, and work on these bits, you might want to open a PR by yourself. I might find some time this week to do some testing on my side as well. |
|
I'm not gonna add myself as a maintainer (especially not with the current controversies). That's why I asked if it's ok to add you as maintainers. I'm personally only interested in the |
I was more referencing that I can't maintain it because of system-specific build issues than anything else, not trying to make comments about anything outside of that, but that I would have otherwise liked to help maintain it. |
Yeah, unfortunately nix builds inside /tmp, which is a problem with larger packages. It's a long-known Nix issue, tracked in NixOS/nix#4137 (comment). You can check if it works if you disable tmp on tmpfs, but I fully understand to have reasons for having it like this :-)
Both fair points, thanks for the clarification. As I stated, I'd be up to maintaining it, but only if/once I use it, so I'll see if I get to migrating some of my configs to it, and cough up a NixOS module (and test) for it. I'll keep this PR updated (and probably push them to it if that's ok) |
Ah sorry I wasn't clearer, this was meant as a reply to @flokli :) |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Sorry, something went wrong.
|
Nevermind, I misread the other comments. |
|
@flokli Could you re-review this and approve/request more changes? This has been sat for a little while due to that requested change :) |
|
I didn't have a chance to test-drive this on my systems, and am not willing to merge a PR adding myself as a maintainer if I don't use and maintain it (yet). Additionally, I got some IRL things to deal with. Please remove me from the list of maintainers, and check with @emilylange if they're willing to adopt this package. |
| rev = "v${version}"; | ||
| owner = "grafana"; | ||
| repo = "alloy"; | ||
| sha256 = "sha256-G+lLxdUnE07QXt2wBcS6K3DVHIS35aKCh0TZCzpNgBE="; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Prefer hash = ... to sha256 = ... Both currently work, but the former will make it easier if the algorithm ever needs to change.
Since there could be different hashing algorithms in use, this make sense.
More info: https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/stable/#fetchurl
Nixpkgs contributors are currently recommended to use hash.
|
@claudiiii are you working on the change @drupol suggested? |
|
@geekodour No, I don't have the capacity for this right now, also I'm not using the package any more. I'm gonna close this PR. To anyone, please feel free to implement the requested changes on top of mine and create a new PR 馃檪 |
|
Thanks a lot @claudiiii for your changes, I have created new PR #317741 馃檪 |
Description of changes
Adding (grafana-)alloy, a rewrite of grafana-agent.
Closes #303418
@flokli @emilylange I added you as maintainers as you already maintain grafana-agent and signaled interest in maintaining alloy as well. I hope that's ok!
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 馃憤 reaction to pull requests you find important.