-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16.5k
check-meta: add allowBrokenPredicate #340081
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
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.
Sounds good to me, but this should get much wider comment before merging.
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.
LGTM, but has a merge conflict
61a110e
to
3432881
Compare
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.
nixfmt wants the following changes
Similar to allowUnfreePredicate, sometimes users may want to only allow specific broken packages to avoid unexpectedly building others. Some packages may be marked broken for policy reasons (lack of upstream support) or due to broken or unsupported functionality that the user may not care about. An example might be forcing ZFS to build on a newer, unsupported Kernel where compilation succeeds and the user is willing to take the risk of being unsupported.
3432881
to
89e5b47
Compare
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-already-reviewed/2617/2447 |
Bump! |
Similar to allowUnfreePredicate, sometimes users may want to only allow specific broken packages to avoid unexpectedly building others.
Some packages may be marked broken for policy reasons (lack of upstream support) or due to broken or unsupported functionality that the user may not care about. An example might be forcing ZFS to build on a newer, unsupported Kernel where compilation succeeds and the user is willing to take the risk of being unsupported.
I think the larger topic for discussion would be: should
broken
be used in this way? I.e., shouldbroken
only be used for packages that actually fail to build or fundamentally work at all, or is it okay to use it for things that might work but are explicitly unsupported? The manual forbroken
doesn’t say much about when to use it.If the answer is that
broken
should only be used for things that fail to build or fundamentally work, then perhaps this PR doesn’t make sense as there’s little use-case for bypassing broken on a per-package basis in one’s config. It does bring up the question, though: how should we then mark packages whose config is unsupported? Back to the ZFS example, running a filesystem on Kernels not explicitly tested and supported by upstream seems like a bad idea by default, and users should have to opt-in to that risk in some way.Description of changes
Things done
Tested with
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.