nix: 2.13.3 -> 2.15.1 #233439
nix: 2.13.3 -> 2.15.1 #233439
Conversation
|
The other interesting question is... will Nix 2.13 receive backports for bugfixes (and patch-level releases) since it'll be used in NixOS for at least another 6 months? |
Do we not backport nix releases? |
|
2.14 badly broke some stuff on the profile handling. 2.15 has fixes for most of these, so we should be good with bumping in in nixpkgs |
We (the Nix team) never formally committed to anything, but it seems quite obvious that the version in Nixpkgs should get some form of LTS support (at least security issues, and bugfixes as much as reasonable) |
|
Given we are hours away from the branch-off, it would be nice to ping also in priority the release managers on that. |
|
Given #146515 is unmerged and references changes to the NixOS module logic for some paths, this can have consequences we would need to stabilize during the beta. To cite Sandro:
I am not in favor of this change being merged in the next hours, stabilization cost is too high in my opinion. I am available in https://matrix.to/#/#nixos-release-management:nixos.org to discuss this further. |
|
Also, I was made aware of NixOS/nix#8294 which is not fixed in 2.15.0 AFAIK. Converting to draft to signal that it should probably wait after branch-off. |
That one isn't needed at all for anything. It merely allows taking advantage of a new optional Nix feature (which overall isn't worth its cost if you ask me).
Uh indeed, there should be a point release for that one |
But what happens if someone uses this optional Nix feature? Will it fail in some unknown ways? What are the expectations of our users in that regards?
Awesome. :) |
There's an explicit warning in the docs saying that it might break whatever. So people shouldn't enable it by accident without knowing what they are doing |
Ah yeah sorry for that, I never intended this to be merged for 23.05, it's in fact a coincidence that it happens to be exactly on the branch-off day 😄. Making this a draft until at least after the branch-off sounds fine |
|
We branched off! Please proceed accordingly :). |
roberth
changed the title
Seems quite serious. I suppose this is blocked on 2.15.1 release? |
|
I think all the (blocking) issues with NixOS/nix#5588 have been resolved with NixOS/nix#7925 . There's still NixOS/nix#7929 which is a less hacky fix, but it's not required. |
|
2.15.1 has been released now, I'm now including that update in this PR |
|
Please add this patch in a commit named --- a/nixos/modules/installer/tools/nix-fallback-paths.nix
+++ b/nixos/modules/installer/tools/nix-fallback-paths.nix
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
{
- x86_64-linux = "/nix/store/mc43d38fibi94pp5crfwacl5gbslccd0-nix-2.13.3";
- i686-linux = "/nix/store/09m966pj26cgd4ihlg8ihl1106j3vih8-nix-2.13.3";
- aarch64-linux = "/nix/store/7f191d125akld27gc6jl0r13l8pl7x0h-nix-2.13.3";
- x86_64-darwin = "/nix/store/1wn9jkvi2zqfjnjgg7lnp30r2q2y8whd-nix-2.13.3";
- aarch64-darwin = "/nix/store/8w0v2mffa10chrf1h66cbvbpw86qmh85-nix-2.13.3";
+ x86_64-linux = "/nix/store/ny9r65799s7xhp605bc2753sjvzkxrrs-nix-2.15.1";
+ i686-linux = "/nix/store/ck55dz5klc7szi8rx9ghhm8gi2b5q5bw-nix-2.15.1";
+ aarch64-linux = "/nix/store/cl0a02vr28913dgw98hrm45a4baqr3z1-nix-2.15.1";
+ x86_64-darwin = "/nix/store/wq228jdbz16pp2lnxf32n8dv27pw53p8-nix-2.15.1";
+ aarch64-darwin = "/nix/store/x11cpsjg4q236msfz5scc325pfp9xy64-nix-2.15.1";
} |
|
@Kranzes I wouldn't be able to trust random hashes being posted in a GitHub comment, but I happen to know that they were posted originally by @edolstra on Matrix, and that they were generated by the release script, which gets those hashes from Hydra, so the paths can be checked against the output paths of these jobs. |
|
Works fine with nix-direnv. nix-eval-jobs on linux works but I have issues with nix headers on darwin. |
|
2.15.1+ I do feel like would make for a good 6 month LTS. |
|
Result of 1 package blacklisted:
11 packages failed to build:
205 packages built:
|
|
The CI failure here is caused by a mistake in another PR of mine, the fix is here: #234070 |
|
The above PR is now merged, so this will fix CI. Additionally Nix 2.16 was just released and already assigned as the unstable default in Nixpkgs. I rebased this PR on top of master with these two changes now. |
But the stable is now also unstable? But has this new version of Nix been tested :) ? |
|
Good point, I don't think there's any policy for that but I guess something like this would make sense:
Therefore Normally we shouldn't require this for packages, but Nix's poor track-record of making breaking changes and its importance should make us consider this. Since we already got confirmation by the Nix team that 2.15 is looking good, I'll make |
|
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: |
github-actions
bot
added
6.topic: nixos
|
I now also updated the |
|
Result of 4 packages marked as broken and skipped:
1 package blacklisted:
7 packages failed to build:
208 packages built:
I can confirm that the failing packages also failed before this PR. Additionally I ran some seemingly relevant NixOS tests, all successful: Addionally I switched my system to 2.15.1 and didn't notice anything breaking. |
|
I guess it's good that we don't update to 2.16 yet: NixOS/nix#8437 |
|
Given the new occurrence,
I think we should make a policy for that, or, at least, in nixpkgs. It does not cost us too much. |
|
Can we merge this? |
|
It would be nice to have NixOS/nix@61ddfa1 in 2.15. |
|
nix 2.15.1 has NixOS/nix#8480 (which effectively breaks nix copy if ssh has controlmaster). |
|
2.15 is the Nix version for the 23.05 release, so we need a backport too for that. |
Is it? The release branch has 2.13.3. |
Please ignore me, I got things confused 🙈… |
Description of changes
Updates the stable Nix version from 2.13.3 to 2.15.1.
There's some information floating around that the 2.14 update is currently blocked, but nobody really explained why that would be the case:
Although these issues have been popping up:
Note that the release branch-off will be today, so assuming that we're not merging this today this will not make it to NixOS 23.05.
Ping @Mic92 @zowoq @NixOS/nix-team
This work is sponsored by Antithesis ✨
Things done
sandbox = trueset innix.conf? (See Nix manual)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)