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.

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

physfs: 3.0.1 -> 3.0.2 #57937

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 10, 2019
Merged

physfs: 3.0.1 -> 3.0.2 #57937

merged 1 commit into from Apr 10, 2019

Conversation

dtzWill
Copy link
Member

@dtzWill dtzWill commented Mar 20, 2019

Motivation for this change

https://icculus.org/pipermail/physfs/2019-March/001280.html

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)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@dtzWill dtzWill requested a review from peterhoeg March 25, 2019 02:43
@dtzWill
Copy link
Member Author

dtzWill commented Mar 25, 2019

Reviewer suggested by github, not sure who to bug :).

@peterhoeg
Copy link
Member

I think it suggested me because I cleaned it up for dxx-rebirth.

@GrahamcOfBorg build dxx-rebirth

@dtzWill dtzWill mentioned this pull request Apr 5, 2019
Closed
@aanderse
Copy link
Member

aanderse commented Apr 9, 2019 •
edited

@peterhoeg is the dxx-rebirth failure on aarch64-linux expected?

@dtzWill did you run nix-review pr 57937 on this? physfs is a pretty low level library so I'm guessing at least a few packages depend on it and it would be great to know none of them break.

EDIT: ran nix-review and had these results:

5 package failed to build:
love_0_7 love_0_8 love_0_9 rimshot vapor

16 package were build:
_90secondportraits allegro5 blobby duckmarines dwarf-fortress-packages.dwarf-fortress-full love love_11 mrrescue neverball orthorobot physfs sienna solarus solarus-quest-editor trigger warzone2100

I know that at least the 3 love package errors are completely unrelated to this and they are broken anyways. Unsure about rimshot or vapor.

tomberek
tomberek approved these changes Apr 10, 2019
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@tomberek tomberek left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Builds, links, runs. (Ubuntu/NixOS).
Similar results as @aanderse
Agree that vapor and rimshot are unrelated failures (they fail before and after this PR).

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

This pull request has been mentioned on Nix community. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-already-reviewed/2617/12

@aanderse aanderse merged commit d165ed8 into NixOS:master Apr 10, 2019
@aanderse
Copy link
Member

Thanks all 🎉

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

@tomberek tomberek tomberek approved these changes

@peterhoeg peterhoeg Awaiting requested review from peterhoeg

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
8.has: package (update) 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 11-100
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
7 participants
@dtzWill @peterhoeg @aanderse @nixos-discourse @tomberek @infinisil @GrahamcOfBorg