hfsutils: init at 3.2.6-14 #77866
hfsutils: init at 3.2.6-14 #77866
Conversation
* init at 3.2.6-14. "-14" is debian patchset used. * touch timestamp files to avoid autoconf after patches, which is good because that fails. (patches fix the generated files too so all good) * hfsutils: fix installation commands, fix build
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
| sha256 = "0h4q51bjj5dvsmc2xx1l7ydii9jmfq5y066zkkn21fajsbb257dw"; | ||
| }) | ||
|
|
||
| # Debian packaging files, for the patches |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please tell us what do the patches fix.
|
|
||
| # Apply patches from debian | ||
| prePatch = '' | ||
| for p in $(cat ../debian/patches/series); do |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't it possible to use the patches attribute instead of this?
|
Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions. Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human. If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do: If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list. If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past. If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments. Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel. |
stale
bot
added
the
2.status: stale
| --replace '"$(BINDEST)/."' \ | ||
| '-Dt "$(BINDEST)"' \ | ||
| --replace '"$(MANDEST)' \ | ||
| '-DT "$(MANDEST)' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| --replace '"$(BINDEST)/."' \ | |
| '-Dt "$(BINDEST)"' \ | |
| --replace '"$(MANDEST)' \ | |
| '-DT "$(MANDEST)' | |
| --replace '"$(BINDEST)/."' '-Dt "$(BINDEST)"' \ | |
| --replace '"$(MANDEST)' '-DT "$(MANDEST)' |
stale
bot
removed
the
2.status: stale
|
Closing because author did not address the review feedback in the last year. |
Motivation for this change
HFS utilities.
after patches, which is good because that fails.
(patches fix the generated files too so all good)
These are especially useful as hfsprogs long since
stopped supporting HFS (as did Apple).
(ours still do, only because they're so very very ancient ;)).
I tackle updating those in 88bf051
(and likely a PR coming shortly after this) but I'm not entirely sure
it's worth upgrading those or not.
But will probably PR it for visibility and in case that does seem
like a good idea to anyone :).
Things done
sandboxinnix.confon non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"./result/bin/)nix path-info -Sbefore and after)