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

libguestfs: 1.38.6 -> 1.40.2 #67572

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 31, 2019
Merged

libguestfs: 1.38.6 -> 1.40.2 #67572

merged 3 commits into from
Oct 31, 2019
+12 −8

Conversation

Amar1729
Copy link
Contributor

@Amar1729 Amar1729 commented Aug 27, 2019 •
edited
Loading

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 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)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Notify maintainers

cc

Note: While the homepage says current stable is 1.39.11, the downloads page indicates stable is 1.40.

Sorry, something went wrong.

@Amar1729 Amar1729 changed the title libguestfs: bump stable 1.38.6 -> 1.40.2 libguestfs: 1.38.6 -> 1.40.2 Aug 27, 2019
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from offlinehacker August 27, 2019 15:54
@andrewrk
Copy link
Member

Hi, thank you for your pull request. I humbly request, please don't cc all nix pkg maintainers. You can look at the list of maintainers in the package, and there is only 1 of them (@offlinehacker) not the 156 people (including myself) you have pinged.

@aycanirican
Copy link
Member

@Amar1729 Nope, the website clearly states that stable branches are 1.38.x and 1.36.x, 1.39.x is a development branch. But I agree that there is a directory named 1.40-stable/ in downloads page and it even has a release in it.

@grahamc
Copy link
Member

grahamc commented Aug 27, 2019

Note also that ofborg automatically pinged offlinehacker :)

@Amar1729
Copy link
Contributor Author

@andrewrk really sorry about that, complete mistake on my part. thanks for the heads up.

@vdemeester
Copy link
Member

@GrahamcOfBorg build libguestfs

@c0bw3b c0bw3b self-assigned this Oct 31, 2019
@c0bw3b c0bw3b added the 2.status: work-in-progress This PR isn't done label Oct 31, 2019
@ofborg ofborg bot added 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch and removed 2.status: merge conflict This PR has merge conflicts with the target branch labels Oct 31, 2019
@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Oct 31, 2019

@GrahamcOfBorg build libguestfs

c0bw3b
c0bw3b approved these changes Oct 31, 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.

Result of nix-review pr 67572 1

6 package were build:
  • libguestfs
  • libguestfs-with-appliance
  • python27Packages.guestfs
  • python37Packages.guestfs
  • python38Packages.guestfs
  • vagrant

@c0bw3b c0bw3b merged commit ded2b8a into NixOS:master Oct 31, 2019
@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/explicit-runhook-in-derivation/4614/1

@c0bw3b c0bw3b removed the 2.status: work-in-progress This PR isn't done label Feb 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@c0bw3b c0bw3b

@offlinehacker offlinehacker

Assignees

@c0bw3b c0bw3b

Labels
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
7 participants
@Amar1729 @andrewrk @aycanirican @grahamc @vdemeester @c0bw3b @nixos-discourse