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

f3: newer git rev, build extra binaries #20724

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 27, 2016
Merged

f3: newer git rev, build extra binaries #20724

merged 1 commit into from Nov 27, 2016

Conversation

elitak
Copy link
Contributor

@elitak elitak commented Nov 26, 2016

Motivation for this change

The v6.0 tag is almost a year old, so I've just switched to the newest revision on github. Also, 3 binaries (f3brew, f3fix, f3probe) weren't being built by this derivation. I had to add a HACK for building with the current gcc+glibc, as described here: AltraMayor/f3#34

Things done

@mention-bot
Copy link

@elitak, thanks for your PR! By analyzing the history of the files in this pull request, we identified @makefu to be a potential reviewer.

@makefu
Copy link
Contributor

makefu commented Nov 26, 2016 •
edited

tested binaries and worked for me.Thanks! 👍

Mic92
Mic92 reviewed Nov 27, 2016
View reviewed changes
pkgs/tools/filesystems/f3/default.nix
{ stdenv, fetchFromGitHub }:
{ stdenv, fetchFromGitHub
, parted, udev
}:

stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
name = "f3-${version}";
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

this should be then also rewritten as:

f3-unstable-2016-11-16

@elitak
Copy link
Contributor Author

elitak commented Nov 27, 2016 •
edited

Okay, done; was wondering about that but wasn't sure if it needed to be numerically greater than 6.0.

@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Nov 27, 2016

Nix does not really care about version number. It is just about conventions.

@Mic92 Mic92 merged commit 03d3531 into NixOS:master Nov 27, 2016
@Mic92
Copy link
Member

Mic92 commented Nov 27, 2016

Thanks!

@elitak
Copy link
Contributor Author

elitak commented Nov 27, 2016

I thought nix-env did though? Like it complains about a collision when trying to replace 6.0 with unstable-2016-11-16, whereas if I were to use 6.0.1 it would perform an upgrade without errors. Additionally, I cannot nix-env -e f3 without providing the version suffix, if the version is non-numeric.

... I looked through the nix source and I'm pretty sure starting the first version component (delimited by . and -) with a non-numeric value is a mistake. I've amended this commit with what is a better version, in case you care to replace the commit. Sorry for the hassle.

@elitak elitak mentioned this pull request Nov 27, 2016
Merged
@elitak
Copy link
Contributor Author

elitak commented Nov 27, 2016

I needed to make a new PR: #20751

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

@Mic92 Mic92 Mic92 left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@elitak @mention-bot @makefu @Mic92