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

Revert "python: ldappool: 2.2.0 -> 2.3.0" #47266

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Sep 24, 2018
Merged

Revert "python: ldappool: 2.2.0 -> 2.3.0" #47266

merged 1 commit into from Sep 24, 2018

Conversation

Ma27
Copy link
Member

@Ma27 Ma27 commented Sep 24, 2018 •
edited

Motivation for this change

This reverts commit 29acc83.

This commit bumped pythonPackages.ldappool to 2.3.0, but missed the additional check input stestr which has several dependencies that aren't packaged in nixpkgs ATM, so the fastest way is to simply revert the patch.

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.

@Ma27 Ma27 requested a review from FRidh as a code owner September 24, 2018 11:36
@Ma27
Copy link
Member Author

Ma27 commented Sep 24, 2018

/cc #45960

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 6d238c3 into NixOS:master Sep 24, 2018
@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2018

backport: 34cafee

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2018

Also we need to make sure that we don't auto-upgrade the next time without a proper fix.

@Ma27 Ma27 deleted the fix-ldappool branch September 24, 2018 12:19
@Ma27
Copy link
Member Author

Ma27 commented Sep 24, 2018

shouldn't the auto-upgrade script try to build the change like @r-ryantm does? In this case, a simple nix-build would've been sufficient.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Sep 24, 2018

python packages are updated differently. I am not sure how this done at the moment.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@FRidh FRidh Awaiting requested review from FRidh

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
6.topic: python 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
3 participants
@Ma27 @Mic92 @GrahamcOfBorg