This is apparent from the service file directory in plymouth:
├── multi-user.target.wants
│ ├── plymouth-quit.service -> ../plymouth-quit.service
│ └── plymouth-quit-wait.service -> ../plymouth-quit-wait.service
Leaving it unspecified caused gdm-wayland to crash on boot, see #39615.
The change made other display managers not quit plymouth properly however. By
removing "multi-user.target" from `plymouth-quit.after` this is resolved.
The following changes have been applied:
- the property `http.headers.X-Content-Type-Options` must a list of
strings rather than a serialized list
- instead of `/etc/docker/registry/config.yml` the configuration will be
written with `pkgs.writeText` and the store path will be used to run
the registry. This reduces the risk of possible impurities by relying
on the Nix store only.
- cleaned up the property paths to easy readability and reduce the
verbosity.
- enhanced the testcase to ensure that digests can be deleted as well
- the `services.docker-registry.extraConfig` object will be merged with
`registryConfig`
/cc @ironpinguin
Some time ago I fixed the broken package `osquery` (see #39336).
I had to test the package manually by starting the daemon locally,
however this doesn't ensure that the module is still functional.
In order to cover the package *and* the integration with the NixOS
module I thought that adding a testcase might be the best idea.
The current testcase does the following things:
* Starts an `osqueryd` service in a test machine with customized logger
path and PID file
* Ensures that the `osqueryd.service` unit is running
* Checks if the customized flags (`pidfile`, `logger_path`) are applied
to `osquery`.
* Performs a simple test query against the `etc_hosts` database to check
if the basic funcitonality of `osquery` (storing system information into
a database) works fine.
@Ekleog writes in https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/39526:
> I think a default of 4096 is maybe too much? See certbot/certbot#4973;
> Let's Encrypt supposedly know what they are doing and use a
> pre-generated 2048-bit DH params (and using the same DH params as
> others is quite bad, even compared to lower bit size, if I correctly
> remember the attacks available -- because it increases by as much the
> value of breaking the group).
> Basically I don't have anything personal against 4096, but fear it may
> re-start the arms race: people like having "more security" than their
> distributions, and having NixOS already having more security than is
> actually useful (I personally don't know whether a real-size quantum
> computer will come before or after our being able to break 2048-bit
> keys, let alone 3072-bit ones -- see wikipedia for some numbers).
> So basically, I'd have set it to 3072 in order to both decrease build
> time and avoid having people setting it to 8192 and complaining about
> how slow things are, but that's just my opinion. :)
While he suggests is 3072 I'm using 2048 now, because it's the default
of "openssl dhparam". If users want to have a higher value, they can
still change it.
Signed-off-by: aszlig <aszlig@nix.build>
