sirula: 1.0.0 -> unstable-2023-09-02 #281963
Conversation
ofborg
bot
added
10.rebuild-darwin: 0
delroth
added
12.approvals: 1
| }; | ||
| }; | ||
|
|
||
| cargoSha256 = lib.fakeSha256; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| cargoSha256 = lib.fakeSha256; |
this is not needed.
| @@ -8,18 +9,27 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| rustPlatform.buildRustPackage rec { | |||
| pname = "sirula"; | |||
| version = "1.0.0"; | |||
| version = "unstable-2023-09-02"; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's been a recent change in versioning scheme, prompting unstable versions to be prefixed with 0-: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/README.md#package-naming
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If a package is a commit from a repository without a version assigned, then the version attribute should be the latest upstream version preceding that commit, followed by -unstable- and the date of the (fetched) commit. The date must be in "YYYY-MM-DD" format.
so that makes it 1.0.1-unstable-2023-09-02 -- 0-unstable... is only when there exists no previous version.
there is a version bump in the commits from v1.0.0 to the current rev.
DorianRudolph/sirula@v1.0.0...b15efe8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I was a bit quick. Yes, almost. I think it should be 1.0.0-unstable-2023-09-02, since the current version is 1.0.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, I was a bit quick. Yes, almost. I think it should be
1.0.0-unstable-2023-09-02, since the current version is1.0.0
note that there is a version bump to 1.0.1 along with the update, though the git tag was not updated.
DorianRudolph/sirula@v1.0.0...b15efe8
or maybe in am misreading the diff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right, no I see it too. Do you know whether that would be an official release, or whether the maintainers just prebumps the version in preparation for a release?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DorianRudolph/sirula@70b5ce1 doesn't really say much
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looking at the commit for tag v1.0.0
DorianRudolph/sirula@24c7151
shows the version bump in cargo.toml from 0.0.1 -> 1.0.0
my guess is 1.0.1 but am fine with either as the tag suggests 1.0.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll open an issue for clarification upstream :)
| rev = "v${version}"; | ||
| sha256 = "sha256-C5mVO10+jD4TDg6R9rVJO6fdDiOD5tT+bEaI53WVdFA="; | ||
| rev = "b15efe85ef1fe50849a33e5919d53d05f4f66090"; | ||
| sha256 = "sha256-S0WbqY49nKaBUMWfgDKZxFLJuk7uFcnTfV8s86V0Zxs="; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Since we're version bumping anyway
| sha256 = "sha256-S0WbqY49nKaBUMWfgDKZxFLJuk7uFcnTfV8s86V0Zxs="; | |
| hash = "sha256-S0WbqY49nKaBUMWfgDKZxFLJuk7uFcnTfV8s86V0Zxs="; |
| nativeBuildInputs = [ | ||
| pkg-config | ||
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would be nice to either not do this, or put it in a different cleanup commit to keep the diff clean.
wegank
added
the
2.status: merge conflict
Aleksanaa
added
the
2.status: stale
|
Done in #309535. |
Description of changes
I updated the sirula source, and had to make a few changes to the code to comply with a git source. Seems like the compilation error of the osstrtools dependency was failing, so the program's author decided that he would add a specific version of this dependency to the Cargo.toml. Because of that, I had to add the cargoLock session.
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.