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
gxplugins-lv2: init at 0.5 #48847
gxplugins-lv2: init at 0.5 #48847
Conversation
dabef5a
to
67bc76d
Compare
67bc76d
to
306df9e
Compare
@GrahamcOfBorg build gxplugins.lv2 |
No attempt on x86_64-darwin (full log) The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: gxplugins.lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Success on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: gxplugins.lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: gxplugins.lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix
Outdated
@@ -17103,6 +17103,8 @@ with pkgs; | |||
|
|||
gxmessage = callPackage ../applications/misc/gxmessage { }; | |||
|
|||
gxplugins.lv2 = callPackage ../applications/audio/gxplugins.lv2 { }; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You cannot have a dot in an attribute name because nix will interpret that as the attibute lv2
of the set gxplugins
, which doesn't make sense here (that's why ofborg says zero builds). Please rename consistently to gxplugins-lv2
(or another acceptable name).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the feedback.
I'm happy to make this change, but I'd like to understand your comment.
ofborg says zero builds
Where does it say that?
Should I also rename:
- sisco.lv2
- eteroj.lv2
- ir.lv2
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Having a top-level set gxplugins
only makes sense if you want to group multiple derivations that logically belong together under a common name, like gxplugins.lv2
, gxplugins.foo
, gxplugins.bar
, and you put them in a common gxplugins
subdirectory below pkgs
. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Some examples in nixpkgs include xorg
, gnome3
, vimPlugins
, gitAndTools
, xfce
.
Where does it say that?
Usually there's a "Details" link next to the ofborg eval check to a list of all (re)builds caused by the PR. This is missing here because ofborg didn't pick up the new package. But that's not an issue by itself, rather the reason why I noticed your're creating a top-level set. Nevermind.
Should I also rename: sisco.lv2 ...
If these are similar cases, yes. If you think they logically belong together because they're all lv2 plugins (your call), it might make sense to group all these in a top-level lv2-plugins
set: lv2-plugins.sisco
, lv2-plugins.eteroj
, lv2-plugins.gxplugins
... If you want to do that, put them under an a common subdirectory pkgs/applications/audio/lv2-plugins
and use recurseIntoAttrs
in top-level/all-packages.nix
, see the other examples mentioned.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@xeji Thanks, done.
306df9e
to
28cfc19
Compare
@GrahamcOfBorg build gxplugins-lv2 |
No attempt on x86_64-darwin (full log) The following builds were skipped because they don't evaluate on x86_64-darwin: gxplugins-lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Success on aarch64-linux (full log) Attempted: gxplugins-lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Success on x86_64-linux (full log) Attempted: gxplugins-lv2 Partial log (click to expand)
|
Motivation for this change
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS)nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)