-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Fix build for >1.9 #82
Conversation
@oscar-izval I tried updating the "nixpkgs-unstable" input in the "flake.lock" file now that Terraform 1.9.2 is available on "nixpkgs". While this resolves the build issue, it consumes a significant amount of time and CI resources; I believe a workaround would be to introduce a new version of "nixpkgs-unstable" for 1.9. What are your thoughts? |
Yeah... not ideal, but not sure how sustainable the idea of adding new instances of On the other hand, CI time and resources are essentially free at this point, except for some babysitting if the build fails by being too big (I think that's why it failed last night). Maybe the most cost-effective solution here is to bite the bullet and rebuild everything. |
@oscar-izval regarding:
Could you elaborate on this? Do you mean having a separate "nixpkgs" instance for each Go minor version needed to build Terraform?
It is primarily due to a license change on Terraform, which is declared as part of the derivation metadata. |
Yes, but now that I'm thinking about it again, we'll need to go in and add a new instance every time it's needed, which is not that different from babysitting the build and retriggering it a few times whenever we need a full recompile. From what I can see in the error logs, the issue is
We may want to look into it from that angle too. Link |
I guess the main difference is that when we need to upgrade the Go version, it only affects new Terraform versions, while the previous ones remain unchanged and can be pulled from the binary cache. But let us talk more about this internally. |
@oscar-izval While you started this PR, I believe I made some changes on top; in that sense, I would avoid the Obama medal approach here and instead open a PR where you could leave comments and give it your final approval. What are your thoughts? |
Absolutely @sestrella, this work is all yours at this point. I'll make sure to take a look at your new PR :) |
It is not about ownership; rather, it is about following up on the proper review process, in which someone else takes a closer look at the proposed changes. Thank you! I would then create a new PR. |
TODO: