technitium-dns-server: undo split / re-merge library and server

[FabianRig]

Things done

Update Technitium DNS Server to 13.3. More important: undo split / re-merge the library into the file so that automatic updates are possible. Refer to the closed PR at #363529 for details.

• 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/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 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.

[wolfgangwalther]

This now has a merge conflict.

[FabianRig]

Yes... Because of 1cd9516. -.-

I'll try to fix that.

[FabianRig]

This now has a merge conflict.

Should be fixed now. Both nuget-deps are now jsons.

[wolfgangwalther]

Could you split the "merge" and the "update" into separate commits?

Merge first, then update. This would allow us to test that the update of both together works well with the update script.

[FabianRig]

This would allow us to test that the update of both together works well with the update script.

Thank you for your suggestion! However, the update script has never worked. Initially, the script's author suggested splitting the package -- which we did and which led to problems. Now we (re-)merge it in order for a new update script to work properly.

So it would be great if you could merge it as is so that we can work on the new update script which updates both components simultaneously in one package.

[wolfgangwalther]

So, you split the package to make the update script work. It didn't work.

Now you merge the package again - to make update script work. But we can't confirm.

This seems pointless. We should make sure that the update script works after merging the packages - before merging the PR.

In any case, the commits should be split into merge and update - independently of whether we can confirm the update script working this way or not. Different kind of changes shouldn't be in the same commit.

[FabianRig]

So, you split the package to make the update script work. It didn't work.

No. Another contributor asked to split the package and separate the library for an update script. I approved that PR. However, that attempt failed.

Now you merge the package again - to make update script work. But we can't confirm.

No. This update script will probably not work -- it has never worked before. However, in the current state, the update script will never work.

This seems pointless. We should make sure that the update script works after merging the packages - before merging the PR.

It hasn't worked. Perhaps a new update script will work, but I don't know. I haven't created any update scripts yet.

In any case, the commits should be split into merge and update - independently of whether we can confirm the update script working this way or not. Different kind of changes shouldn't be in the same commit.

OK. I removed the update part and only included the merging of the library into the package -- e.g. the original state.

[wolfgangwalther]

Seems like we need a release of Mic92/nix-update#311 to make the updating work for the merged derivation.

[FabianRig]

Merge conflict removed.

[wolfgangwalther]

Seems like we need a release of Mic92/nix-update#311 to make the updating work for the merged derivation.

I tested the new --subpackage option - but this is designed for a different use-case. It only works when the source repository is the same for the two derivations, but in this case it's a different repo.

I don't see any way to automate updates for multiple packages at the same time, right now. There is an open ticket here though: nix-community/nixpkgs-update#29 - that seems to be better.

In short: I don't see any benefit to undo the split. It won't help with updating.

[FabianRig]

In short: I don't see any benefit to undo the split. It won't help with updating.

And I don't see any benefit in keeping an unnecessary split. I shouldn't have accepted the suggestion to split the package -- but unfortunately I did. I'd like to correct that now.