prismlauncher: 8.3 -> 8.4; refactor #321851
Conversation
getchoo
added
the
11.by: upstream-developer
|
from the pkgs/by-name check: is this not allowed when migrating to by-name? or a false positive? |
|
cc @infinisil |
ofborg
bot
added
11.by: package-maintainer
|
This should be improved in the future, but for now this isn't a false positive, see also https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/README.md#limitations :) |
this primarily reorders arguments and items in lists, fixes the meta-attributes of the wrapped version of the package, tidies up some comments, and adds new ones to better explain why we do certain things
getchoo
force-pushed
the
pkgs/prismlauncher/8.4
branch
from
2b29afa to
98a046d
Compare
tysm for the clarification. guess i missed that :p |
| , ninja | ||
| , jdk17 | ||
| , zlib | ||
| , qtbase | ||
| , quazip | ||
| , kdePackages |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can this be changed to qt5 or qt6?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it can be, but shouldn't. we're currently in the process of deprecating distribution of builds against qt 5 in distros where possible (and reasonable ofc) upstream, up until it's eventual removal
if users really want to use qt 5 still for whatever reason, i think using the standard override interface here would suffice
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, can this then be changed to qt6?
As I have seen at the website, this application does not use KDE-specific things, only a small bunch of Qt libs...
P.S.: can you point me to a specific place where the Qt5 deprecation is discussed? I have some Qt6+5 packages to deal with...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So, can this then be changed to qt6?
is kdePackages not qt 6? i'm a bit confused here
P.S.: can you point me to a specific place where the Qt5 deprecation is discussed? I have some Qt6+5 packages to deal with...
we're tracking this upstream at PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher#2324 with the actual removal in PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher#2174. we dropped support for our qt 5 build here in #305556
controllerSupport and textToSpeechSupport have no effect outside of linux and have no reason to be set; both of these work out of the box on darwin without any intervention from us
getchoo
force-pushed
the
pkgs/prismlauncher/8.4
branch
from
98a046d to
94ad1c3
Compare
|
Result of 2 packages built:
|
|
Backport failed for Please cherry-pick the changes locally and resolve any conflicts. git fetch origin release-24.05
git worktree add -d .worktree/backport-321851-to-release-24.05 origin/release-24.05
cd .worktree/backport-321851-to-release-24.05
git switch --create backport-321851-to-release-24.05
git cherry-pick -x dce34fd38b6cd06d2938807c74e731b81f677da6 b40318aaf71299220228c71a3b14fd1d2880eb37 88039bb875585904972c9598a681e63ed2a18263 40581e9eed5ec929a67e0c4109a8e83dbeb12f63 ea1cf5da523b1febfa5078a2c5db09fd056ffe92 3b2969b1a569e1f95ad0e51b8fdb05f76efdf1cc 94ad1c37a84a2065fe30470125d577aa5e3b3994 |
|
Could you explain why you think this meets the backport criteria? |
|
this is a minor update that contains new functionality and large bug fixes with no breaking changes regarding the changes to the expression: the only thing that really breaks here would be some of the new assertions. i would honestly consider these bugs in the packaging itself though, as there's no reason to have many of them set on platforms besides linux and allowing them to be defined but be a no-op isn't a great experience. the defaults of these overrides also remain the same, keeping impact pretty minimal |
|
Hm, I'm honestly not convinced. Unless these bugs are somehow critical to the app's operation, they don't really fit the criteria. Though even if it was critical, I'd ask you to cherry-pick a patch instead. The refactor also hold a bit of risk to introduce unintended regressions. It's fine and even expected to let bugs remain in stable but you should never introduce new ones if it's in any way avoidable. At least that's my view on it. I appreciate you wanting to bring fixes to users ASAP but users of stable want stability, not speed. People who want fixes ASAP use the rolling channel. |
Brings in changes from the Prism Launcher derivation(s) in nixpkgs, notably from NixOS/nixpkgs#321851 and NixOS/nixpkgs#303880 Signed-off-by: Evan Goode <mail@evangoo.de>
Brings in changes from the Prism Launcher derivation(s) in nixpkgs, notably from NixOS/nixpkgs#321851 and NixOS/nixpkgs#303880 Signed-off-by: Evan Goode <mail@evangoo.de>
Brings in changes from the Prism Launcher derivation(s) in nixpkgs, notably from NixOS/nixpkgs#321851 and NixOS/nixpkgs#303880 Signed-off-by: Evan Goode <mail@evangoo.de>
Brings in changes from the Prism Launcher derivation(s) in nixpkgs, notably from NixOS/nixpkgs#321851 and NixOS/nixpkgs#303880 Signed-off-by: Evan Goode <mail@evangoo.de>
Description of changes
Changelog: https://github.com/PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher/releases/tag/8.4 (this actual changelog isn't here just yet, but will be soon)
Diff: PrismLauncher/PrismLauncher@8.3...8.4
This is a standard release with no major changes; I have gone back to refactor and improved some things while we're at it, though
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.