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
libyaml: 0.2.1 -> 0.2.2 #64293
libyaml: 0.2.1 -> 0.2.2 #64293
Conversation
4f65055
to
8981f6c
Compare
|
Reported upstream yaml/pyyaml#320. |
This |
Should fetch from https://github.com/yaml/libyaml |
That would have the disadvantage of having to use autotools during the build. In any case, it seems we have to make a libyaml rebuild (not too bad, ~3k together). I suggest to just use the "new" tarball: - sha256 = "1karpcfgacgppa82wm2drcfn2kb6q2wqfykf5nrhy20sci2i2a3q";
+ sha256 = "4a9100ab61047fd9bd395bcef3ce5403365cafd55c1e0d0299cde14958e47be9"; as the tarball seems OK to me and pyyaml tests also pass with it. What do you think? |
Motivation for this change
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)