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

acpilight: fix build error #63670

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 24, 2019
Merged

acpilight: fix build error #63670

merged 1 commit into from Jun 24, 2019

Conversation

arcnmx
Copy link
Member

@arcnmx arcnmx commented Jun 22, 2019

Motivation for this change

udevadm trigger should not run as part of make install. The offending line is Makefile#17, would a patch be more appropriate or is this change fine?

The package doesn't seem to depend on udev beyond providing rules files, it seems like a recent systemd update broke this, previously it was fine but really shouldn't have been running that command anyway.

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.

@arcnmx
acpilight: fix build error
3f79ede 
udevadm should not run as part of make install
@matthewbauer matthewbauer merged commit 3726505 into NixOS:master Jun 24, 2019
@arcnmx arcnmx deleted the acpilight-build-fix branch June 24, 2019 01:52
@JohnAZoidberg JohnAZoidberg mentioned this pull request Jun 24, 2019
Closed
@JohnAZoidberg
Copy link
Member

I like patches better, because they break when they change the line of code which we patch. With substituteInPlace me might replace other future occurences of that string and we won't know when they have removed that string upstream.

@arcnmx
Copy link
Member Author

arcnmx commented Jun 24, 2019

Patch is probably a better long-term solution yeah, though if I knew there was going to be a release made a few days ago I would've just submitted a change upstream to make it the default value of POST_INSTALL or something that could be easily overridden.

Alternatively, do what arch does and ignore the Makefile entirely? It doesn't really do much.

@JohnAZoidberg
Copy link
Member

I asked them to make this release :P (Before I saw your PR)

Yes, arch ignores the Makefile entirely. They seem to do that a lot. In this case it would be fine because the Makefile doesn't do a whole lot. But then we'd remove coupling from upstream and have to maintain it ourselves - which doesn't make it better.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
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
@arcnmx @JohnAZoidberg @matthewbauer