Skip to content
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

linux_xanmod, linux_xanmod_latest: 2025-01-11 #373041

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jan 12, 2025
Merged

Conversation

Shawn8901
Copy link
Contributor

@Shawn8901 Shawn8901 commented Jan 11, 2025

still building lts.
lts is fine for me.

Things done

  • Built on platform(s)
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
    • sandbox = relaxed
    • sandbox = true
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Release notes)
    • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
    • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
    • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the 6.topic: kernel The Linux kernel label Jan 11, 2025
@Shawn8901 Shawn8901 added the backport release-24.11 Backport PR automatically label Jan 11, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 501-1000 labels Jan 11, 2025
@Shawn8901 Shawn8901 marked this pull request as ready for review January 12, 2025 09:59
Copy link
Contributor

@eljamm eljamm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Main LGTM

@eljamm eljamm added 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one reputable person 12.approved-by: package-maintainer This PR was reviewed and approved by a maintainer listed in the package labels Jan 12, 2025
@eljamm
Copy link
Contributor

eljamm commented Jan 12, 2025

I have a couple of questions that I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify:

  1. The note above the package versions says:

When updating these, please also take a look at the changes done to kernel config in the xanmod version commit

But which changes should we look for, exactly? Is it just the ones in structuredExtraConfig?

  1. I've noticed that the number of rebuilds for xanmod is always big (501-1000), but we're merging to master instead of staging. I assume this is fine, but I'm wondering about the reason. Is it because the rebuilt packages are just kernel modules?

@Shawn8901
Copy link
Contributor Author

I have a couple of questions that I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify:

1. The note above the package versions says:

When updating these, please also take a look at the changes done to kernel config in the xanmod version commit

But which changes should we look for, exactly? Is it just the ones in structuredExtraConfig?

Here is meant to check in the xanmod tree, if there have been any changes to the kernel config that we want/need to copy over to our structuredExtraConfig, so that we are kinda similar on the important configs of xanmod (there are atm still quite some diffs between upstream xanmod config and ours) due to different defaults on some non-xanmod patch specific settings

2. I've noticed that the number of rebuilds for xanmod is always big (`501-1000`), but we're merging to master instead of staging. I assume this is fine, but I'm wondering about the reason. Is it because the rebuilt packages are just kernel modules?

Yes, AFAIK it will have to rebuild all modules for the kernel, as they are in scope of the kernel package.

@moni-dz
Copy link
Contributor

moni-dz commented Jan 12, 2025

2. I've noticed that the number of rebuilds for xanmod is always big (501-1000), but we're merging to master instead of staging. I assume this is fine, but I'm wondering about the reason. Is it because the rebuilt packages are just kernel modules?

Kernels need to be pushed to master because of potential security fixes.

Copy link
Contributor

@moni-dz moni-dz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

main boots

@moni-dz moni-dz added 12.approvals: 2 This PR was reviewed and approved by two reputable people and removed 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one reputable person labels Jan 12, 2025
@ck3d ck3d merged commit e913c73 into NixOS:master Jan 12, 2025
69 checks passed
@nix-backports
Copy link

nix-backports bot commented Jan 12, 2025

Successfully created backport PR for release-24.11:

@eljamm
Copy link
Contributor

eljamm commented Jan 12, 2025

I see, thank you both!

@Shawn8901 Shawn8901 deleted the update-xanmod branch January 12, 2025 11:54
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
6.topic: kernel The Linux kernel 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin 10.rebuild-linux: 501-1000 12.approvals: 2 This PR was reviewed and approved by two reputable people 12.approved-by: package-maintainer This PR was reviewed and approved by a maintainer listed in the package backport release-24.11 Backport PR automatically
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants