lxd: 5.19 -> 5.20

[jnsgruk]

Description of changes

Bump to latest version of LXD 5.20; update license to AGPLv3

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/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 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.

[jnsgruk]

Hmm, not sure I understand the ofborg output, package builds fine locally.

[adamcstephens]

It's failing to eval on something cuda related, not from this PR. I'm not sure exactly who is working on the fix.

@ofborg eval
@ofborg test lxd

[adamcstephens]

This needs a license change, as 5.20 is now agplv3: canonical/lxd#12663

It would have been nice if this was at the top of the release notes, instead of at the bottom of a long unstructured list of changes.

Please rebase off master when updating the license to see if it fixes the eval.

[adamcstephens]

Please relicense to agplv3. Thanks!

[jnsgruk]

Please relicense to agplv3. Thanks!

Done :)

[alerque]

The "relicense" to AGPL3 is not 100% accurate. Canonical employee contributions have been relicensed and future contributions will be under AGPL3 but the current code base includes Apache-2 licensed community contributions (lots of them). That makes the current release some unclear dual license situation with a mix of APL2 and AGPL3. Canonical has not properly called out this situation either at the project level nor in the relevant source files.

[adamcstephens]

Fair enough, then we should probably put both licenses in a list.

[jnsgruk]

@adamcstephens done

[adamcstephens]

Incus exists for those who don't want the headache of this license change. 😉