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

airwindows: init at 20-08-2018 #45430

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

airwindows: init at 20-08-2018 #45430

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

magnetophon
Copy link
Member

@magnetophon magnetophon commented Aug 21, 2018 •
edited

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • 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 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.

@xeji
Copy link
Contributor

xeji commented Aug 23, 2018

Build checked locally. But I think the package should be classified as unfree as it requires the unfree SDK. You cannot mark only the SDK as unfree since is only a local derivation, not a separate package in nixpgs. The way it is structured now, airwindows is unfree.

@magnetophon
Copy link
Member Author

@xeji Airwave is also using the vst sdk and has an MIT license.

@xeji
Copy link
Contributor

xeji commented Aug 24, 2018

Same thing. The author may have licensed their code under MIT. But since the derivation in nixpkgs includes the unfree sdk it should be marked unfree as they're packaged together.

The best solution would be to make the vst sdk a separate unfree package and make airwave and airwindows reference it as a dependency. That would correctly describe the licensing situation.

@magnetophon
Copy link
Member Author

@xeji I won't be able to work on this for a while.
There is awareness of the problem upstream though.
Should I close this PR for now, or leave it open?

@xeji
Copy link
Contributor

xeji commented Sep 4, 2018

No problem, let's leave it open, I'll mark it as WIP.

@mmahut
Copy link
Member

mmahut commented Aug 7, 2019

Any updates on this pull request, please?

@magnetophon
Copy link
Member Author

Nothing has changed, sorry.
Schall I close it?

@mmahut mmahut closed this Aug 22, 2019
@magnetophon magnetophon mentioned this pull request May 28, 2020
Closed
10 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
2.status: work-in-progress 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
4 participants
@magnetophon @xeji @mmahut @GrahamcOfBorg