Talk: NixOS on ARM/Raspberry Pi 4

From NixOS Wiki
< Talk:NixOS on ARM
Revision as of 03:21, 27 September 2021 by Jakimfett (talk | contribs) (Viable Pi 4 (B) image(s): new section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I am a bit confused here, it seems like there is a lot of valueable information, but it hard to follow. Can someone help me clear it up, please?


About which image to use it says:

First follow the generic installation steps to get the installer image and install using the installation and configuration steps. (Link to https://nixos.wiki/wiki/NixOS_on_ARM#Installation which itself links to https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/release-20.03/nixos.sd_image.aarch64-linux) Until the generic image works, a temporary device-specific image is build on Hydra. Note that this image is not using u-boot, but rather the Raspberry Pi specific bootloader configuration. (Link to https://hydra.nixos.org/job/nixos/trunk-combined/nixos.sd_image_raspberrypi4.aarch64-linux)

Only the later link gave me an image that would boot on my RP4(4GB)


There is also this line: "These configurations will boot (from this PR comment):" But then no configurations do follow.

Viable Pi 4 (B) image(s)

(The confusion around working images is compounded by the fact that Hydra offers identically-named downloads have non-identical contents, and the underscore/hyphen nomenclature varies wildly. It took me a while to confirm that the file I'd downloaded matched the build link below.)

...

Currently, build #149338044 has worked twice on my Pi 4 (B) hardware. My usage is command-line only (Bash on TTY + ssh/mosh headless use), and the first run was stable for about three or four weeks of daily-ish use.

...

To be quite honest, I'm not sure how I found that specific working image.

I know my path led past here, which is why I'm posting, but I know it involved a lot of negotiating with Hydra's willingness to purge long-running queries and finding a way to list successful sd_image_new_kernel.aarch64-linux builds (maybe via this query?. Following that logic has been somewhat of a mixed bag, eg today I've unsuccessfully attempted to get both build #154444353 and build #154444322 to run.