Add two simple checks from #1 #26
Conversation
explanations/maintainer-missing.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| All packages ought to have a maintainer. | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I remember seeing something describing what is expected of maintainers. Would be nice to link it here but cannot find it now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe it was a discussion on discourse? That would be useful.
explanations/maintainer-missing.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| All packages ought to have a maintainer. | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also need to add anchors to https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#sec-standard-meta-attributes so that we can link to the maintainers field docs.
rmcgibbo
force-pushed
the
simple-checks
branch
from
a2ef123 to
ad4f3cb
Compare
| Package is missing a license | ||
| ''; | ||
| locations = [ | ||
| (builtins.head (builtins.filter (l: l != null) [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The head partiality gives me creeps 😆
rmcgibbo
force-pushed
the
simple-checks
branch
from
ad4f3cb to
c6d9e09
Compare
rmcgibbo
force-pushed
the
simple-checks
branch
from
c6d9e09 to
e93c7d0
Compare
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| All packages ought to have a maintainer. | |||
|
|
|||
| This can be the update submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package. See [Section 7.1 of the Nixpkgs manual](https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#sec-standard-meta-attributes) for more details. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I merged the PR so we will be able to link directly to https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#var-meta-maintainers once the manual is rebuilt.
rmcgibbo
force-pushed
the
simple-checks
branch
from
e93c7d0 to
fcb8aa3
Compare
|
Clearly I need a nixpkgs-hammer for helping me make clean PRs to nixpkgs-hammer. Sorry for all the little nits, and thanks for reviewing so well :P |
n.b. I think we could probably improve the wording of the explanations and the warning message.