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

Jump to bottom

amarok: add last.fm support, bump version #88016

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jun 15, 2020
Merged

amarok: add last.fm support, bump version #88016

merged 2 commits into from Jun 15, 2020

Conversation

kini
Copy link
Member

@kini kini commented May 17, 2020 •
edited

Motivation for this change

This PR bumps amarok to the most recent commit in master and adds liblastfm as a dependency to make use of the last.fm integration that has been re-enabled in upstream master (it was disabled for a while due to breakage on Qt5).

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.

@ofborg ofborg bot requested review from peterhoeg, Phreedom and ttuegel May 17, 2020 10:39
@ofborg ofborg bot removed the 6.topic: qt/kde label May 17, 2020
@kini kini force-pushed the amarok/lastfm-support branch 2 times, most recently from e801b1d to 2e1a6dc Compare May 17, 2020 18:38
@kini
Copy link
Member Author

kini commented May 17, 2020

Anyone know why @ofborg removed the qt/kde label that @prusnak added to this PR?

@doronbehar
Copy link
Contributor

Anyone know why @ofborg removed the qt/kde label that @prusnak added to this PR?

Because @ofborg is the boss here 😆.

@kini kini force-pushed the amarok/lastfm-support branch 2 times, most recently from 64dc678 to ac5ce94 Compare May 25, 2020 00:07
@kini kini force-pushed the amarok/lastfm-support branch 2 times, most recently from 5c4a0fc to 72b7d64 Compare June 8, 2020 02:18
@veprbl veprbl self-assigned this Jun 8, 2020
@veprbl
Copy link
Member

veprbl commented Jun 8, 2020

Let's drop Qt 4 version of liblastfm #89821

@kini
Copy link
Member Author

kini commented Jun 8, 2020 •
edited

@veprbl Do you want me to rebase on your branch? It looks like your branch subsumes most of what I did in this PR. All that's left is the bumping of Amarok and the addition of liblastfm to its buildInputs.

Your approach to porting liblastfm to Qt5 is different from mine, which just pulls some unreleased commits from the liblastfm repo. I'm not sure which is the better strategy. Your fix certainly seems simpler than mine, at least. The patches I'm using seem to be what a few other Linux distros use, though, e.g. Gentoo and Arch.

@veprbl
Copy link
Member

veprbl commented Jun 8, 2020

@kini With the patch would be also fine, but preferably need to fetch from the upstream commit. I'm just doing the minimal change to fix things. Interested parties could look into bumping liblastfm to the latest unstable version.

@kini
Copy link
Member Author

kini commented Jun 14, 2020

@veprbl One of the patches is from a PR on the upstream repo that has been open for a couple of months (the maintainer doesn't seem to be responding to it). Is it OK to fetch from this PR?

@veprbl
Copy link
Member

veprbl commented Jun 14, 2020

@kini Fetching from an unstable url like https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/lastfm/liblastfm/pull/36.patch may be irreproducible, it will cause a hash mismatch if the PR is updated. Fetching with a specific commit hash like https://github.com/lastfm/liblastfm/pull/37/commits/9c5d072b55f2863310e40291677e6397e9cbc3c2.diff might work better.

@kini
Copy link
Member Author

kini commented Jun 14, 2020

@veprbl Thanks. I pushed a commit that updates liblastfm to liblastfm-unstable-2019-08-23 (the latest master) and then applies that open PR's patch.

One more question -- should the liblastfm attribute in all-packages.nix be moved inside the Qt5 library list, in the mkLibsForQt5 attribute? Not sure what the conventions are here.

@veprbl
Copy link
Member

veprbl commented Jun 14, 2020

One more question -- should the liblastfm attribute in all-packages.nix be moved inside the Qt5 library list, in the mkLibsForQt5 attribute? Not sure what the conventions are here.

That seems reasonable to me.
cc @ttuegel

@kini
amarok: 2.9.0-20190824 -> amarok-unstable 2020-06-12
c2f945b 
This commit bumps amarok to the most recent commit in master and adds liblastfm
as a dependency to make use of the last.fm integration that has been re-enabled
in upstream master (it was disabled for a while due to breakage on Qt5).

I also updated the package name and version to match [the stipulations in the
Nixpxgs manual](https://nixos.org/nixpkgs/manual/#sec-package-naming).
@kini
Copy link
Member Author

kini commented Jun 14, 2020

OK, thanks -- made that change too.

@veprbl veprbl merged commit d3044f0 into NixOS:master Jun 15, 2020
@veprbl
Copy link
Member

veprbl commented Jun 15, 2020 •
edited

Thank you!

@kini kini deleted the amarok/lastfm-support branch June 15, 2020 21:02
@veprbl veprbl removed their assignment Oct 9, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@veprbl veprbl veprbl approved these changes

@prusnak prusnak prusnak requested changes

@peterhoeg peterhoeg Awaiting requested review from peterhoeg

@Phreedom Phreedom Awaiting requested review from Phreedom

@ttuegel ttuegel Awaiting requested review from ttuegel

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
8.has: clean-up 8.has: package (new) 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@kini @doronbehar @veprbl @prusnak