Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

hidapi: drop cross conditional on gnum4 #108044

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

hidapi: drop cross conditional on gnum4 #108044

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

flokli
Copy link
Contributor

@flokli flokli commented Dec 31, 2020

f651423 only added this in the cross
case to avoid another mass rebuild, but there's no reason to not clean
this up during the next staging cycle.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@flokli flokli requested a review from FRidh December 31, 2020 12:51
@flokli
hidapi: drop cross conditional on gnum4
47e1583 
f651423 only added this in the cross
case to avoid another mass rebuild, but there's no reason to not clean
this up during the next staging cycle.
@flokli flokli force-pushed the hidapi-drop-m4-cross-condition branch from 6b85c43 to 47e1583 Compare December 31, 2020 12:52
@flokli
Copy link
Contributor Author

flokli commented Dec 31, 2020

This also includes the review feedback from @SuperSandro2000 in #108025.

@flokli flokli mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2020
Closed
10 tasks
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from prusnak December 31, 2020 13:13
@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented Dec 31, 2020 •
edited

Just an idea - but shouldn't we just add gnum4 to autoreconfHook as a dependency?

@flokli
Copy link
Contributor Author

flokli commented Dec 31, 2020

Just an idea - but shouldn't we just add gnum4 to autoreconfHook as a dependency?

This sounds right - I wonder why it was available in non-cross builds in first place, though?

@prusnak
Copy link
Member

prusnak commented Dec 31, 2020 •
edited

On the another hand, it seems there are only 4 derivations requiring both autoreconfHook and gnum4, so that might be probably an overkill.

I am wondering how many cases are we missing, though ...

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 31, 2020 •
edited

Its on PATH, not HOST_PATH. That means its incorrectly propagated by something. Probably bison or libtool2. They should use propagatedNativeBuildInputs instead or not propagate at all.

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 31, 2020

it seems there are only 4 derivations requiring both autoreconfHook and gnum4, so that might be probably an overkill.

note the m4 alias is more commonly used.

FRidh
FRidh requested changes Dec 31, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@FRidh FRidh left a comment •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need to fix propagation of m4 and probably remove gnum4 here as dependency. #108047

@FRidh FRidh mentioned this pull request Dec 31, 2020
Closed
10 tasks
@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 31, 2020

Its on PATH, not HOST_PATH. That means its incorrectly propagated by something. Probably bison or libtool2. They should use propagatedNativeBuildInputs instead or not propagate at all.

I am wrong here. PATH is good. HOST_PATH is where it should not be.

SuperSandro2000
SuperSandro2000 approved these changes Dec 31, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@SuperSandro2000 SuperSandro2000 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

diff LGTM

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 31, 2020

So the issue was bf46afd...doh

@FRidh FRidh closed this Dec 31, 2020
@FRidh
Copy link
Member

FRidh commented Dec 31, 2020

PR with the style changes is of course still welcome!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@FRidh FRidh FRidh requested changes

@prusnak prusnak prusnak approved these changes

@SuperSandro2000 SuperSandro2000 SuperSandro2000 approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 501+ 10.rebuild-darwin: 1001-2500 10.rebuild-linux: 501+ 10.rebuild-linux: 2501-5000
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@flokli @prusnak @FRidh @SuperSandro2000