paperlib: init at 3.1.6

[ByteSudoer]

Description of changes

Project description
An open-source academic paper management tool.
Metadata

• homepage URL: https://paperlib.app/en/
• source URL: https://github.com/Future-Scholars/paperlib
• license: GPL-3.0 license
• platforms: unix, linux, darwin

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[ShamrockLee]

Given that it's an open-source project, I suggest renaming this package to paperlib-bin and leaving space for the source-built package available for all platforms. name = "paperlib"; should be kept unchanged.

[jackyliu16]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 323958 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• paperlib

[nevivurn]

Also, why were ShamrockLee's reviews marked as resolved?

[ShamrockLee]

Thank you for addressing the formatting review.

I would still like to hear what you think about my two other reviews (renaming this package to paperlib-bin and exposing binary packages for all systems via passthru). It is confusing to see them marked "resolved" with no changes or comments added.

As you are, I'm a contributor to Nixpkgs without commit access. Even though we cannot merge pull requests or request "blocking changes" during reviews, I still hope to move pull requests and the Nixpkgs project forward by participating in discussions during pull request reviews.

[ByteSudoer]

@ShamrockLee, yes I will address them as soon as I can and I re-request your review. Sorry they completely flew over my head.

[nevivurn]

Final, minor comments from me, I think.

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-already-reviewed/2617/1815

[JohnRTitor]

Fails to build at the moment.

┃        >
┃        > trying https://github.com/Future-Scholars/paperlib-bin/releases/download/release-electron-3.1.6/Paperlib_3.1.6.AppImage
┃        >   % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
┃        >                                  Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
┃        >   0     0    0     0    0     0      0      0 --:--:--  0:00:01 --:--:--     0
┃        > curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404
┃        > error: cannot download Paperlib_3.1.6.AppImage from any mirror
┃        For full logs, run 'nix log /nix/store/y3yqsmfz4f6ny2d4k9ngrbnp64cwyl5w-Paperlib_3.1.6.AppImage.drv'.
┣━ Dependency Graph:

[JohnRTitor]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 323958 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package failed to build:

• paperlib

[ByteSudoer]

@JohnRTitor Changing the pname variable messed up the upstream url(where the src would be fetched from). Sorry about that. It would be fixed soon.

[JohnRTitor]

In addition, the whole file should be formatted with nixfmt-rfc-style

[SuperSandro2000]

I would still like to hear what you think about my two other reviews (renaming this package to paperlib-bin and exposing binary packages for all systems via passthru). It is confusing to see them marked "resolved" with no changes or comments added.

That is not what we are generally doing. This is usually reflected by meta.sourceProvonance and we only have the -bin suffix if there are two packages.