Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Backport 24.11]: nickel: 1.8.0 -> 1.9.1 #367328

Conversation

matthiasbeyer
Copy link
Contributor

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:
  • 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.

(cherry picked from commit 5c182f8)
Signed-off-by: Matthias Beyer <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit 0085529)
Signed-off-by: Matthias Beyer <[email protected]>
@matthiasbeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I really don't like this spam.

@lucasew
Copy link
Contributor

lucasew commented Dec 22, 2024

I really don't like this spam.

That's still work in progress. Not sure how can I join the messages because each message comes from a different worker.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

That's still work in progress. Not sure how can I join the messages because each message comes from a different worker.

Maybe you can dynamically start the different workers as nix remote builders and then run nixpkgs-review once with those remote builders set up?

Then nixpkgs-review would report exactly once.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

v1.9.0 mentions a breaking change that requires manual intervention: https://github.com/tweag/nickel/releases/tag/1.9.0

Should this really be backported?

@ofborg ofborg bot requested review from AndersonTorres and felschr December 22, 2024 22:42
@ofborg ofborg bot added the 11.by: package-maintainer This PR was created by the maintainer of the package it changes label Dec 22, 2024
@matthiasbeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

Should this really be backported?

On one hand you're absolutely right, on the other are we not responsible for keeping backwards compatibility of upstream software.
Backporting to 24.05? Probably no. Backporting to 24.11? IMO yes.

If the software vendor cannot keep their backwards compatibility, that's not our problem, IMO,... at least not for software like this. Kernel, bootloader and such things are another topic, but this is not mission-critical software for nix/nixpkgs, so I'd say lets backport.

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

If the software vendor cannot keep their backwards compatibility, that's not our problem

Our contribution guidelines say something else:

Here are some examples of backwards-compatible changes that are okay to backport:
[...]
Minor versions with new functionality, but no breaking changes

@wolfgangwalther
Copy link
Contributor

The point is, that on a release branch, you should be able to update regularly to get all the security updates and keep your system safe - without breaking any of your workflows when doing so. The effort required to keep your system on the latest release branch should be minimal.

@matthiasbeyer
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't care enough.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 11.by: package-maintainer This PR was created by the maintainer of the package it changes
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants