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

djvulibre: {adopt, clean-up, upd description} #69271

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 24, 2019

Conversation

Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation for this change
  1. Old description said that there is a viewer - it is not here, - in the djview package. But there is all other tools for management.
  2. Old description said there is library in package - the fact there is none. Most document utils I am aware of ship with own copy of djvulibre and often statically include it, and most utils seems to depend on djvulibre binaries that are very unix-like flexible.

The value of package is all utils for DJVU management.
New description of the package much more on point, package has a set of binaries and mans for them.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • 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 nix-review --run "nix-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.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor Author

@peterhoeg

I woopsed that PR, so here is clean one. Already squashed commits.

@matthewbauer
Copy link
Member

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 23, 2019

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

2 similar comments
@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2019

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor Author

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor Author

Anton-Latukha commented Sep 24, 2019

Guys, if you can believe it, I with Hoeg already talked and tested it in #69046. Hoeg asked to make cosmetic changes, those changes triggered a rebuild of package, and since that - also a sub-graph, including all versions of ImageMagic which have big numbers of successors.

There is why moved to staging, but while switching - I borked that thread.

P.S.
I promised him to further continue work on this package. Since I took on responsibility of maintaining - I would separate {lib, bin}, by creating the real dvjulibre library package (which does not exist in nixpkgs at the moment), and then go through the dependencies and look which require bins, and which can benefit from lib, and which require both. But that is a relatively big question, so I am separating concerns. I ask to merge this cosmetics first.

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit d3f474e into NixOS:staging Sep 24, 2019
@peterhoeg
Copy link
Member

The plan was to avoid another big rebuild when the split goes in.

@Anton-Latukha
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, sorry, I perceived the discussion as i wrote.
I said to you my view in that thread already.

The code is clear aslo. I don't want to see how people waste their time trying to evaluate cosmetics that already was evaluated and reviewed.

I want to do atomic PRs. I would not turn completed cosmetic coffee-break devoted PR into recursive yak shaving PR. I also wrote a big hearty letter about why I do not do that, but I put it the table. Life thought me that. But it is also obvious why big PRs should not happen. As soon as work done and reviewed - I would send/accept what is improved, and do another atomic change.

I hope you all have a calm time. It feels that the community is tired. NixPkgs achieved the max 12.7 warp speed, while 10 warp - is a speed on Linux Kernel changes. Thank you.

I wrote a bug-report screen play in the issue tracker, to explain the issue with priority'ies and it's default values. And send-in the description. Also I bug-tracked your issue today. I hope that counts for that I am honest.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 25, 2019

There is a mass-rebuild in staging anyway. So it does not matter in the end.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants