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
stups: init at 1.1.21 #71389
stups: init at 1.1.21 #71389
Conversation
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.
Also, it should be roughly 1 commit for one package (think in terms of cherry-picking commits across branches). It should look like:
maintainers: add mschuwalow
stups-berry: init at 1.0.28
stups-cli-support: init at 1.1.20
...
Ok. Is it alright to contribute them as part of one pr? |
yea, same PR, just many commits |
4a65edd
to
743f63e
Compare
you're welcome to have all the commits in one PR :), in general, it just takes a little longer to resolve all the issues. |
743f63e
to
b41a92d
Compare
e1b5324
to
3aaace9
Compare
I agree that it makes sense to split them up. I have included derivations for 3 packages here and they seem to be passing. Would be great if you could do another around of review and check whether they now conform to the guidelines now. If they do, feel free to merge this and I'll do the other packages separately. |
The test phases for all 3 packages go downloading random dependencies from pypi, certainly on macos 10.13. These dependencies instead need to be provided through nix via |
Oh also this does not work on python2 - you'll have to disable it for |
41c6086
to
233e015
Compare
233e015
to
70c36d4
Compare
If updated the pr. Thank you both for your responsiveness and patience 💪 |
70c36d4
to
65dd881
Compare
could you give this another review / list what needs to be done to get this merged? |
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.
In general, the most common layout for a nix expression follows the order in which it evaluated then built:
the top-level attrs should roughly be:
pname
version
[disabled]
src
nativeBuildInputs
buildInputs
propagatedBuildInputs
patches
buildPhase + hooks
installPhase + hooks
checkPhase + hooks (and maybe checkInputs)
meta
checkPhase and checkInputs can be grouped together, but this is roughly the paradigm adhered to by most packages.
65dd881
to
0db3edb
Compare
@jonringer could you take another look? |
0db3edb
to
c02ba03
Compare
@jonringer I've addressed your remarks |
@jonringer Sorry for bothering you, but I would like to get this merged. |
c02ba03
to
95a88e2
Compare
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.
nix-review
passes on NixOS
diff LGTM
commits LGTM
[11 built, 11 copied (3.4 MiB), 0.7 MiB DL]
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/71389
6 package were built:
python37Packages.stups-cli-support python37Packages.stups-tokens python37Packages.stups-zign python38Packages.stups-cli-support python38Packages.stups-tokens python38Packages.stups-zign
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.
tested with nix-review, seems to be fine
Motivation for this change
Add derivations for https://github.com/zalando-stups/stups-cli
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)Notify maintainers
cc @