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
treewide get rid of go 1.12 #83253
treewide get rid of go 1.12 #83253
Conversation
@worldofpeace Sorry - these got dropped out of #81159 |
And I got excited, so this PR now completely removes go 1.12 (and almost go1.13) |
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.
Nice 👏
LGTM 🙃
@@ -9,12 +9,12 @@ | |||
with lib; | |||
|
|||
let | |||
version = "3.11.0"; | |||
version = "4.1.0"; |
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.
😍
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.
Thanks! I've put in some small requests/comments on Consul.
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.
LGTM for the consul
change.
@kalbasit @worldofpeace Any chance you could review + merge? |
@c00w Yeah a rebase is needed. (and resolve conflicts). Merge seems good to me. |
Rebased - everything still passes with
|
@kalbasit @worldofpeace Should be good for another round of review :) |
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review-may-2019/3032/147 |
@GrahamcOfBorg eval |
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.
LGTM. May need another rebase to fix the eval but it looks good overall. Before you merge, we should ask the bot to build all affected packages on Linux/Mac.
Thanks :) AFAIK I don't have permission to merge, or talk to the bot, so someone needs to fix it. The eval failure is actually a interesting bug in grahamcofborg, where if you delete a file, it fails. And since by design I'm deleting to go1.12 files, it gets hit. |
The eval error is
Using
we need to actually remove |
Good catch - deleted missing reference in go_1_12. I don't see go_1_11 in aliases.nix, so it seems like it's unlikely to be needed? And this + bazel-watcher seems to have fixed the bot :) |
9fc8d15
to
813f7cc
Compare
Rebase on top of master, since the go 1.13 removal PR got merged. |
There isn't really a likelihood of something needing an alias or a
is slightly more helpful than an attribute just not existing. |
Seeing this hasn't been done regularly we could ignore that for this particular PR, but I know these help people. |
@worldofpeace Added. |
Updated PR with latest master due to a conflict. |
I updated to version 2.8.0 which is the latest on master. Then due to the 2 different sets of go modules which are used, I split the build into two different derivations, then merged them togethor using symlinkJoin to have the same output structure as the existing derivation.
I updated the consul version to 1.7.2 and flipped it to building using modules.
Update the version to the latest unstable on master.
Switched the version to 1.20
Updated the version Forced only building subpackages with main to prevent panics over multiple modules in one repo
Had to update the version to 4.1.0 and do a bit of munging to get this to work
These are no longer needed.
Rebased on master. |
Thank you for your patience @c00w and your contribution ✨ |
Motivation for this change
Getting rid of go1.12 dependencies so we can drop go1.12. Also this accidentally got dropped out of #81159
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)