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
linux_zen: 5.9.12 -> 5.9.13 #106349
linux_zen: 5.9.12 -> 5.9.13 #106349
Conversation
/marvin opt-in |
Hi! I'm an experimental bot. My goal is to guide this PR through its stages, hopefully ending with a merge. You can read up on the usage here. |
@glittershark please review. |
cc @andresilva |
Result of 8 packages marked as broken and skipped:
18 packages failed to build:
54 packages built:
|
out of curiosity, is there a reason we don't care about those 18 failures? |
Those modules are broken on any 5.9 kernel and, in most cases, even earlier versions; we just slacked marking them as such during upgrades. @jonringer and I have marked most of them on 20.09 #102209 but I haven't gotten around to doing the same on master because finding out what's broken and what isn't is a fairly tedious manual process and I wanted to automate detection of wrongly marked modules (both ways). |
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)Result of
nixpkgs-review pr 106349
run on x86_64-linux 18 packages marked as broken and skipped:
19 packages failed to build:
54 packages built: