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

helper tool to track XenServer components within nixpkgs #8673

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

ts468
Copy link
Contributor

@ts468 ts468 commented Jul 6, 2015

No description provided.

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
{stdenv, fetchurl, fetchgit, nix-template-rpm }:

# Xenserver buildroot of somehow around XenServer 6.5.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This comment might make a good meta.longDescription.

@falsifian
Copy link
Contributor

I added some minor comments.

I don't have the proper context to review this properly, but I guess it can't hurt to merge it in since it doesn't change any existing stuff.

Can you at least confirm you've tested it and it works as expected?

@ts468
Copy link
Contributor Author

ts468 commented Jul 8, 2015

@falsifian, thank you very much for the detailed review! I'll address all the points that you raised.

@falsifian
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks. The most important thing: can you confirm you've used this expression and it works?

The other points are minor and can be fixed after merging this.

# Xenserver is not an application by itself, but just a collection of components.
# This package only provides the build inputs to actually build the components of xenserver.
stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
name = "xenserver-${version}";
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Should the name be xenserver-buildroot?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks, that would be better, yes.

@ts468
Copy link
Contributor Author

ts468 commented Jul 13, 2015

@falsifian, thank you very much for your efforts in getting the PR merged. The script works, but part of it depends heavily on the naming of the ocaml modules in PR #8705 and #8672, which is about to change. So once the other two PRs are fixed I would update this PR accordingly before getting it merged.

@jagajaga
Copy link
Member

jagajaga commented Mar 3, 2016

ping :)

@fpletz fpletz closed this Feb 22, 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

4 participants