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

android-file-transfer: 3.7 -> 3.8 #61674

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 18, 2019
Merged

android-file-transfer: 3.7 -> 3.8 #61674

merged 1 commit into from May 18, 2019

Conversation

dywedir
Copy link
Member

@dywedir dywedir commented May 18, 2019

Motivation for this change

https://github.com/whoozle/android-file-transfer-linux/releases/tag/v3.8

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 nix-review --run "nix-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)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

cc @xaverdh

@dywedir
Copy link
Member Author

dywedir commented May 18, 2019

@c0bw3b addressed, thanks!

c0bw3b
c0bw3b approved these changes May 18, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@c0bw3b c0bw3b left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Tested locally too

@c0bw3b c0bw3b merged commit 39c663d into NixOS:master May 18, 2019
@dywedir dywedir deleted the android-file-transfer branch May 18, 2019 18:27
@xaverdh
Copy link
Contributor

xaverdh commented May 18, 2019

Did you forget to update the hash (to "0sym33a0ccdka2cpzv003n2xniid70z0gkjxx93gd2bajkgs9ggc") ?

@xaverdh
Copy link
Contributor

xaverdh commented May 18, 2019

Ok, I am rather surprised that worked at all. There should have been a hash mismatch in fetchFromGitHub.

@xaverdh
Copy link
Contributor

xaverdh commented May 18, 2019

opened #61688, but we really should find out why that worked in the first place...

@xaverdh xaverdh mentioned this pull request May 18, 2019
Closed
@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented May 19, 2019 •
edited

Yes I'm surprised too.. I tested locally with nix-review and got no hash mismatch..
It's possible upstream replaced the tag with a newer commit right after this merge doesn't seem so

@dywedir
Copy link
Member Author

dywedir commented May 20, 2019 •
edited

Did you forget to update the hash (to "0sym33a0ccdka2cpzv003n2xniid70z0gkjxx93gd2bajkgs9ggc") ?

Oops. Thanks for fixing this!

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

@c0bw3b c0bw3b c0bw3b approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
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
3 participants
@dywedir @xaverdh @c0bw3b