keycloak: 24.0.5 -> 25.0.1

[NickCao]

Description of changes

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:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• 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/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 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.

[NickCao]

        > caused by:
       >  rendering release-notes/rl-2205.section.md
       >
       > caused by:
       > bad local reference, id #opt-services.keycloak.settings.hostname-strict-backchannel not known

What should we do about this?

[teutat3s]

Maybe change it to a string services.keycloak... without the reference/link to the option?

[NickCao]

Marking draft due to some regression: keycloak/keycloak#30306

[NickCao]

Marking draft due to some regression: keycloak/keycloak#30306

This, together with a lot other regressions are now fixed.

[teutat3s]

Test nixosTests.keycloak.mysql fails for me locally, not sure if it's the same failure though.

[teutat3s]

Would it be okay to backport this to 24.05? Or would we only do that if security fixes were part of the new version?
EDIT: We did set a precedent with #271845 once.

[NickCao]

Would it be okay to backport this to 24.05?

Maybe not.

EDIT: We did set a precedent with #271845 once.

That was due to the prior version going to EOL right?

[teutat3s]

That's the case here as well, support for 24.0.x ended on 2024-06-10 AFAICT.

[NickCao]

That's the case here as well, support for 24.0.x ended on 2024-06-10 AFAICT.

Trying out the backport in #323480, however the release binary fails to launch for some reason.