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
lipx: init at 1.2 #65055
lipx: init at 1.2 #65055
Conversation
with lib; | ||
|
||
stdenv.mkDerivation rec { | ||
name = "lipx-${version}"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please use pname
.
src = fetchFromGitHub { | ||
owner = "kylon"; | ||
repo = "Lipx"; | ||
rev = "1c01fcff06f1015750ad5461d5c898cba692326d"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please either move the version to unstable-${date}
or use the commit rev of the "release", which in this case looks like e66dc12c6c22c060e5c24fdf2698d7e6c2543b7b
for 1.2.?
patchShebangs $out/bin/lipx | ||
''; | ||
|
||
meta = { |
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.
License is missing, can you please find out?
I don't think just a single python script like this is a good fit for nixpkgs. |
The number of files and language is not a metric for determining inclusion. In this case, the program is a useful addition to the already existing emulation tools. Despite the rather odd source. However, I won't be furthering this pull request so ah well! I'll keep it in my fork; easier than NUR ;) |
The actual metric I use for determining inclusion is how many users there could be and if it will be maintained in nixpkgs and upstream. That's not to mean it couldn't be useful to someone, I don't think the goal is to be a packages collection of every piece of software ever written. |
That is a fine metric. Stating that originally would of been reasonable. |
Thanks. I'll keep that in mind if I close someone's PR based on that metric so it's clear. |
Thinking on this further... Not including low-impact packages from nixpkgs should be applied more. That leads to the question: How should "low impact" be determined? Lots of options and IMO nothing clear yet. In the meantime, I propose adding a label to PRs that have this feature. Enable quantifying to a degree. (While I think there are usability issues with using NUR/overlays instead those are separate issues) |
This pull request has been mentioned on Nix community. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/we-need-more-defined-guidelines-for-package-inclusion/3592/2 |
Motivation for this change
add IPS patching tool
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)