Adding custom plugins causes the `vim` command to be a wrapper script
running `vim -u ...`, which makes it not load the default ~/.vimrc.
(This is analogous to #177375 about neovim.)
As of Vim 9, the syntax-highlighting portion of the nix plugin is
upstream; the full plugin is only needed for indentation etc. (see also
e261eb152b). So, using regular pkgs.vim
works around this behavior/bug and causes any ~/.vimrc to get loaded,
without regressing the syntax highlighting support that motivated the
change being reverted here.
This reverts commit 0b5a0cbc69.
ReiserFS has not been actively maintained for many years. It has been
marked as obsolete since Linux 6.6, and is scheduled for removal
in 2025. A warning is logged informing users of this every time a
ReiserFS file system is mounted. It suffers from unfixable issues
like the year 2038 problem.
JFS is a slightly more ambiguous case. It also has not been actively
maintained for years; even in 2008 questions were being raised
about its maintenance state and IBM’s commitment to it, and some
enterprise distributions were opting not to ship support for it as
a result. It will [indefinitely postpone journal writes], leading
to data loss over potentially arbitrary amounts of time. Kernel
developers [considered marking it as deprecated] last year, but
no concrete decision was made. There have been [occasional fixes]
to the code since then, but even the developer of much of those was
not opposed to deprecating it.
[considered marking it as deprecated]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/Y8DvK281ii6yPRcW@infradead.org/
[indefinitely postpone journal writes]: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/events/usenix05/tech/general/full_papers/prabhakaran/prabhakaran.pdf
[occasional fixes]: https://www.phoronix.com/news/JFS-Linux-6.7-Improvements
Regardless of whether JFS should be removed from the kernel, with all
the implications for existing installations that entails, I think
it’s safe to say that no new Linux installation should be using
either of these file systems, and that it’s a waste of space and
potential footgun to be shipping support for them on our standard
installation media. We’re lagging behind other distributions on
this decision; neither is supported by Fedora’s installation media.
(It also just so happens that `jfsutils` is the one remaining package
in the minimal installer ISO that has reproducibility issues, due to
some cursed toolchain bug, but I’m not trying to Goodhart’s law
this or anything. I just think we shouldn’t be shipping it anyway.)
Considering that you most likely edit Nix code in the installer, that
seems like a useful thing.
The size of the ISO I got from
nix-build nixos/release.nix -A iso_minimal.x86_64-linux
is still at 877M.
The `boot.zfs.enabled` option is marked `readOnly`, so this is the only way to
successfully build a NixOS installer image for platforms that zfs does not build
for.
Co-authored-by: Alyssa Ross <hi@alyssa.is>
ZFS's popularity is growing, and not including it by default is a
bit frustrating. On top of that, the base iso includes ZFS
_anyway_ due to other packages depending upon it.
I think we're in the clear to do this on the basis that Oracle
probably doesn't care, it is probably fine (the SFLC agrees) and
we're a small fish. If a copyright holder asks us to, we can
definitely revert it again.
This reverts commit 33d07c7ea9.
The nixos-manual service already uses w3m-nographics for a variant that
drops unnecessary junk like various image libraries.
iso_minimal closure (i.e. uncompressed) goes from 1884M -> 1837M.
This includes fuse-common (fusePackages.fuse_3.common) as recommended by
upstream. But while fuse(2) and fuse3 would normally depend on
fuse-common we can't do that in nixpkgs while fuse-common is just
another output from the fuse3 multiple-output derivation (i.e. this
would result in a circular dependency). To avoid building fuse3 twice I
decided it would be best to copy the shared files (i.e. the ones
provided by fuse(2) and fuse3) from fuse-common to fuse (version 2) and
avoid collision warnings by defining priorities. Now it should be
possible to install an arbitrary combination of "fuse", "fuse3", and
"fuse-common" without getting any collision warnings. The end result
should be the same and all changes should be backwards compatible
(assuming that mount.fuse from fuse3 is backwards compatible as stated
by upstream [0] - if not this might break some /etc/fstab definitions
but that should be very unlikely).
My tests with sshfs (version 2 and 3) didn't show any problems.
See #28409 for some additional information.
[0]: https://github.com/libfuse/libfuse/releases/tag/fuse-3.0.0
It seems that it is a GPL violation to distribute zfs in the
installation ISOs.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/
If anyone knows the issue better and has a reason to reenable it
legally, feel free to reenable it. I don't know much about it.
This reverts commit e8e8164f348a0e8655e1d50a7a404bdc62055f4e. I
misread the original commit as adding the "which" package, but it only
adds it to base.nix. So then the original motivation (making it work
in subshells) doesn't hold. Note that we already have some convenience
aliases that don't work in subshells either (such as "ll").
