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.

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

goffice: 0.10.47 -> 0.10.48 #96332

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 1, 2020
Merged

Conversation

r-ryantm
Copy link
Contributor

Automatic update generated by nixpkgs-update tools. This update was made based on information from passthru.updateScript.

meta.description for goffice is: "A Glib/GTK set of document centric objects and utilities"

meta.homepage for goffice is: ""

meta.changelog for goffice is: ""

Updates performed
  • Ran passthru.UpdateScript
To inspect upstream changes
Impact
Checks done (click to expand)

Rebuild report (if merged into master) (click to expand)
15 total rebuild path(s)

4 package rebuild(s)

4 x86_64-linux rebuild(s)
4 i686-linux rebuild(s)
3 x86_64-darwin rebuild(s)
4 aarch64-linux rebuild(s)


First fifty rebuilds by attrpath
abiword
gnumeric
goffice
nip2
Instructions to test this update (click to expand)

Either download from Cachix:

nix-store -r /nix/store/3wcjbnz2al4x6x6pzrff3dl0h323i077-goffice-0.10.48 \
  --option binary-caches 'https://cache.nixos.org/ https://nix-community.cachix.org/' \
  --option trusted-public-keys '
  nix-community.cachix.org-1:mB9FSh9qf2dCimDSUo8Zy7bkq5CX+/rkCWyvRCYg3Fs=
  cache.nixos.org-1:6NCHdD59X431o0gWypbMrAURkbJ16ZPMQFGspcDShjY=
  '

(The Cachix cache is only trusted for this store-path realization.)
For the Cachix download to work, your user must be in the trusted-users list or you can use sudo since root is effectively trusted.

Or, build yourself:

nix-build -A goffice https://github.com/r-ryantm/nixpkgs/archive/33520c80fe348256d5a17cbf312aa46c829d2352.tar.gz

After you've downloaded or built it, look at the files and if there are any, run the binaries:

ls -la /nix/store/3wcjbnz2al4x6x6pzrff3dl0h323i077-goffice-0.10.48
ls -la /nix/store/3wcjbnz2al4x6x6pzrff3dl0h323i077-goffice-0.10.48/bin


Pre-merge build results

We have automatically built all packages that will get rebuilt due to
this change.

This gives evidence on whether the upgrade will break dependent packages.
Note sometimes packages show up as failed to build independent of the
change, simply because they are already broken on the target branch.

Result of nixpkgs-review 1

1 package failed to build:
  • gnumeric
3 packages built:
  • abiword
  • goffice
  • nip2

Maintainer pings

Copy link
Contributor

@jtojnar jtojnar left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@jtojnar jtojnar added the 8.has: upstream changes reviewed Reviewer checked the changelogs/commit logs associated with the release and did not find any issues. label Aug 30, 2020
@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

jonringer commented Sep 1, 2020

breaks gnumeric

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/96332
1 package failed to build:
gnumeric

3 packages built:
abiword goffice nip2

Copy link
Contributor

@jonringer jonringer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 96332 1

4 packages built:
  • abiword
  • gnumeric
  • goffice
  • nip2

@jonringer jonringer merged commit ceaf053 into NixOS:master Sep 1, 2020
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from vcunat September 1, 2020 00:21
@r-ryantm r-ryantm deleted the auto-update/goffice branch September 1, 2020 01:11
@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Sep 1, 2020

Changes to gnumeric look fine too https://ftp.gnome.org/pub/GNOME/sources/gnumeric/1.12/gnumeric-1.12.48.news

@jonringer
Copy link
Contributor

@jtojnar since they shared the same patch version, I assumed they were developed in tandom

@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Sep 1, 2020

Yeah, that seems to be the case, would not expect it to break if they do not match, though.

I just recently started tagging PRs with 8.has: upstream changes reviewed after reviewing the changelogs so that I can immediately notice when this was not done in previous updates. So after you pushed here (good catch) I had to review gnumeric too or the tag would not be true.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
8.has: upstream changes reviewed Reviewer checked the changelogs/commit logs associated with the release and did not find any issues. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants