3 ms·

Thanks. Interesting to know! The thing I worried most is not the kind of problems fixable by rolling back, but (potentially silent) data corruption. Do you kno

Thanks. Interesting to know! The thing I worried most is not the kind of problems fixable by rolling back, but (potentially silent) data corruption. Do you know how exactly is OpenZFS on nixOS supported? For example, currently both the Arch Linux and nixOS guide in the OpenZFS documentation said people should mention @ne9z in filing issues on those platforms, but @ne9z no longer exists. I have seen how maintainers can screw up and causes data corruption (Ubuntu specifically) so I worry about that aspect as well.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
Hm, so I've not really touched that side of things; mostly I just interact as a happy user. I think the relevant sources are https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/os-specific/linux/zfs/2_2.nix https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/os-specifi... and https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/os-specific/linux/zfs/generic.nix https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/os-specifi... , with the former listing a couple of maintainers and the latter I think showing that NixOS is taking upstream OpenZFS with zero source code patches (because mkDerivation is passed `patches = extraPatches;` and I'm reasonably sure `extraPatches ? []` defines an empty list). I'm not sure why those two files list one maintainer in one and two in the other.