nix-less bootstrap #332
Labels
No labels
0 points
0.5 points
1 point
13 points
2 points
21 points
3 points
34 points
5 points
55 points
8 points
api service
blocked
component: fediversity panel
component: nixops4
documentation
estimation high: >3d
estimation low: <2h
estimation mid: <8h
infinite points
productisation
project-management
question
role: application developer
role: application operator
role: hosting provider
role: maintainer
security
technical debt
testing
type unclear
type: bug
type: deliverable
type: key result
type: objective
type: task
type: user story
user experience
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Depends on
#325 Reproducible proxmox installation
fediversity/fediversity
Reference: fediversity/fediversity#332
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
As a host interested in using Fediversity,
I want to be able to use Fediversity given a Proxmox instance without needing to also install Nix,
so that I may be able to try Fediversity without having to install unfamiliar software.
implementation notes
Fediversity has so far presumed Nix, building operator nixos configurations on the orchestrator rather than on the target or a builder. We could loosen Fediversity's install requirement to bootstrapping Fediversity both Nix and ProxmoX to being able to bootstrap from either of the two, in case of bootstrapping from ProxmoX perhaps relying on some base images to provide the builder (#366) and orchestrator.
c.f. #325 which is about installing ProxmoX from Nix, rather than Nix from ProxmoX.
We can always build a base image with Nix (and we do), the question is more what the user/hosting-provider experience is supposed to be. I think the issue description as is should be more like a comment on #325 to bend that user story to say something slightly different.
I added the other ticket as a dependency here now, tho i think this ticket stems from a distinct need with distinct requirements, and as such may be better left off separated.
On intended experience, I think we have different stakeholders with different needs:
Right, we can also have these two in sequence, because once we have a from-source bootstap we can cheaply produce images.