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

Libmsgpack gcc7 fixes #31764

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 17, 2017
Merged

Libmsgpack gcc7 fixes #31764

merged 2 commits into from Nov 17, 2017

Conversation

adisbladis
Copy link
Member

Motivation for this change

These versions are not referenced anywhere in the tree and are broken with gcc-7 (see tracking issue #31747)

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option build-use-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/)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Copy link
Member

@vcunat vcunat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

On a brief look, 2.1 seems compatible with 2.0 and not that far from compatibility with 1.4.

@adisbladis
Copy link
Member Author

CCing maintainers @redbaron and @wkennington

@vcunat
Copy link
Member

vcunat commented Nov 17, 2017

@peterhoeg: any particular reason why you kept 2.0 in #30318?

@peterhoeg
Copy link
Member

something needed it (broke with 2.1) but it would obviously have been helpful for everyone if I had actually changed whatever derivation(s) that required it. Let me check on this.

@peterhoeg
Copy link
Member

Everything seems to build with the default msgpack 2.1.5 so I guess we can blow away 2.0

@orivej orivej merged commit e283833 into NixOS:master Nov 17, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants