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
autoconf: 2.69 -> 2.70 #106663
autoconf: 2.69 -> 2.70 #106663
Conversation
@vcunat could you make a hydra job for this. |
c48f754
to
533f9c4
Compare
Here it is: https://hydra.nixos.org/jobset/nixpkgs/autoconf-2.70 (just a single platform for now) |
News: https://lwn.net/Articles/839395/ :-)
|
I think this is ready now. I've addressed every autoconf-related
Hydra failure. Any objections before I merge?
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the attrs should have been called autoconf_2_{69,70}
as this is more aligned established versioning conventions.
But LGTM otherwise.
it would be a lot of tedious work to change it now
other regressions and be dealt with in staging-next.
I agree in general, although in this case other autoconf versions used the scheme without underscores so I thought it was better to stick to that here. |
perhaps autoconf versions pre-dates coming to a consensus about version numbers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hydra OK at a quick look. In case some regression was missed, most likely it will be simply fixed by switching version for the failing package...
This broke the
|
Curious, this PR already did set |
@Ericson2314 could this be triggered via 4b2ab66, by any chance? |
I consider being able to build a minimal nixos image for aarch64, from a x86_64 workstation somewhat important. As written, autoconf had no release for some years, we don't need to rush merging this to master, but can block until we don't break cross. |
Agreed, probably should have just exposed autoconf270; and switch the default much later. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
hidapi fix #108025 |
I disagree. That’s just how we get stuck on old versions of things for years. There’s no reason to think that waiting a year or whatever would have made any difference to one package failing because nobody thought to test a cross image. |
I consider being able to build a minimal nixos image for aarch64,
from a x86_64 workstation somewhat important.
I agree -- I was trying to be careful about failures, but assumed that
Hydra would test everything important. Would it be feasible to have
that as something Hydra would test?
|
Yes and its one of those topics that's been open for years. We need to revisit |
Motivation for this change
First release in 6 years! I expect this will take a lot of fixing up packages. For now, I think we should just keep 2.69 around and pin it for anything that fails with 2.70. I’ll look into getting a Hydra jobset or something so we can identify all the packages that need that before applying this.
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)