Octave modules #108562
Octave modules #108562
Conversation
|
@KarlJoad please fix the merge conflict. |
KarlJoad
force-pushed
the
octave-modules
branch
from
c8f6c02
to
53b5cfd
Compare
ofborg
bot
added
10.rebuild-darwin: 0
10.rebuild-linux: 0
and removed
2.status: merge conflict
labels
Fixed! 😄 I forgot to rebase before opening the request, so I just had to do a massive rebase and sort a few things out. |
In the comment presented here: NixOS#108562 (comment) I was presented with a simpler way of formatting/building the meta attribute set. This commit is a squash of performing these changes on all packages that are currently defined. octave/control: simplify meta attr set octave/general: simplify meta attr set octave/io: simplify meta attr set octave/level-set: simplify meta attr set octave/linear-algebra: simplify meta attr set octave/ltfat: simplify meta attr set octave/signal: simplify meta attr set octave/symbolic: simplify meta attr set
This bug was introduced when KarlJoad performed a *very* large rebase after opening PR NixOS#108562. NixOS#108562 Essentially, while working on getting octave packages usable, octave was changed quite a bit, and many thing in passthru were changed. I was manipulating passthru to make some other things work, and I accidentally flipped some things around. This commit is meant to fix that.
Partly in response to: NixOS#108562 (comment)
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
11.by: package-maintainer
10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
and removed
10.rebuild-linux: 0
labels
KarlJoad
force-pushed
the
octave-modules
branch
from
d995aea
to
61d36df
Compare
|
This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review which does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch) Result of 2 packages marked as broken and skipped:
5 packages built:
|
This allows packages to declare other octave package dependencies in their respective definitions, and when added here, they are implicitly passed. In response to: NixOS#108562 (comment)
doronbehar
force-pushed
the
octave-modules
branch
from
6152bf1
to
64bacd1
Compare
|
Thanks once more @KarlJoad for all the work. I took the liberty to shorten the commit messages even further to include only necessary information. I tested The next step is to document how Octave packages are handled in Nixpkgs... 📖. |
|
Hey, @doronbehar. Sorry for the ping, and i know this isn't exactly the right place to ask, but i've looked around and couldn't get Should I'd love to help document this if at all possible, too. |
|
Got it working using { pkgs ? import <nixpkgs> {} }:
pkgs.mkShell {
nativeBuildInputs = with pkgs; [
(octave.withPackages (ps: with ps; [symbolic]))
];
} |
|
@Misterio77, while technically possible open a shell with the octave package completely standalone, there is some trickery with text-based database files when using |
|
That makes a lot more sense! Thanks for helping a newbie understand it haha :)) |
Motivation for this change
This PR would fulfill the request in Issue #65398.
Much of the code mirrors that of lua and python, and not insignificant portions were built out of that.
This is a very messy branch, I know. I attempted a naive approach the first time, which really did not work in my favor.
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)No tests were present in nixos/tests for Octave, so there is nothing to do on that front.