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

libjpeg_turbo: 2.0.3 -> 2.0.4 #84279

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 10, 2020
Merged

Conversation

colemickens
Copy link
Member

Motivation for this change

Update libjpeg_turbo to latest stable, but mostly doing this to add the comment so someone else doesn't try to package libturbojpeg again.

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.

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Apr 5, 2020

mostly doing this to add the comment so someone else doesn't try to package libturbojpeg again

... so I assume you want to remove pkgs/development/libraries/libturbojpeg/default.nix from the PR?

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Apr 5, 2020

And perhaps you want to add yourself into meta.maintainers? I can't say I really maintain the package, but it certainly feels important enough to me.

@colemickens
Copy link
Member Author

Hm. I'm really only sending this PR because (1) I started it thinking libturbojpeg wasn't packaged (and want to add the comment for anyone else grepping), and (2) someone in IRC encouraged me to go ahead and update this one since it's a bugfix behind.

I don't use it directly, or know anything about it. I don't mind sending updates for it, or adding it to my list of packages to keep an eye on, but other than that, I'm not qualified to "maintain" this if it ever required any non-trivial maintenance work.

What would be the guidance for me? I'm finding myself wondering, "What exactly is the implication of putting my name in that array?".

@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from vcunat April 8, 2020 21:09
@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Apr 9, 2020

There's not much implication; it's still not defined anywhere AFAIK :-) Mainly you get mentioned here when someone wants something about the package. I think @GrahamcOfBorg now automatically requests reviews from meta.maintainers when it detects changes in the corresponding file. And maintainers are generally expected to react to these in some way.

EDIT: actually you can see the bot in action just above this comment :-)

Staging automation moved this from WIP to Ready Apr 10, 2020
@vcunat vcunat merged commit f2198c4 into NixOS:staging Apr 10, 2020
Staging automation moved this from Ready to Done Apr 10, 2020
@colemickens colemickens deleted the nixpkgs-libturbojpeg branch December 30, 2022 01:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Staging
  
Done
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants