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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

clipit-gtk3: init at 20180725 #42598

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

clipit-gtk3: init at 20180725 #42598

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

colonelpanic8
Copy link
Contributor

Motivation for this change

The current version of clipit, hosted from

https://github.com/CristianHenzel/ClipIt

doesn't work with current versions of gtk3, which is why this is pointed to my fork.

This seems to build without the maintainer statement from:

#41876

although it shoudl really depend on it.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS N/A
    • 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 nox --run "nox-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)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Jun 26, 2018

Why not just fix the existing clipit package?

@xeji
Copy link
Contributor

xeji commented Jun 26, 2018

@GrahamcOfBorg eval

@colonelpanic8
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jtojnar I'm open to that, but I did change the repository to point to my fork (because the current owner does not appear to be responding to pull requests).

The current clipit also uses gtk2 and I guess I didn't want to force too much change all at once.

Again, if you would prefer to simply change the current clipit derivation I'm definitely open to that, just felt like it might be perceived as aggressive or presumptuous to do it that way.

matthewbauer
matthewbauer requested changes Jul 23, 2018
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@matthewbauer matthewbauer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be easier to just reuse the old clipit expression.

@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Jul 23, 2018

Yes, I would just use the old expression and add https://github.com/IvanMalison/ClipIt/commit/9741c39382a3f6e4c03eac6905a49794d07c465a.patch to patches with fetchpatch.

@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Jul 23, 2018

Actually, it looks like the developer did respond, so I would just wait.

@xeji xeji added the 2.status: wait-for-upstream Waiting for upstream fix (or their other action). label Aug 25, 2018
@jtojnar
Copy link
Contributor

jtojnar commented Apr 8, 2019

Upstream merged the changes. Do you still care about this?

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Apr 2, 2020

superseeded by #84111

@Mic92 Mic92 closed this Apr 2, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@matthewbauer matthewbauer matthewbauer requested changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
2.status: wait-for-upstream Waiting for upstream fix (or their other action). 8.has: package (new) 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
6 participants
@colonelpanic8 @jtojnar @xeji @Mic92 @matthewbauer @GrahamcOfBorg