PRs in distress

Development
78

@nyanbinary this PR is not “in distress”. The author simply lost interest in pursuing it.

79

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/264454
Stuck in how to move forward on this PR so far, just got it to compile.

80

It would be nice for NixOS 23.11 to have working user lingering.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/261319

81

This PR was approved in July, but is still waiting for somebody to merge it:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/240179

I don’t know whether the problem is that ofborg has gone awol without finishing the checks:

“Started 3m 28d 4h 50m 7s ago”

I believe that particular check would have passed if ofborg had run it at the time. If rerun now, it will probably fail, since something recently broke libpostal on macOS. Hopefully, that’s fixed by libpostal: fix on darwin by Thra11 · Pull Request #269292 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub, but since I don’t believe that that failure is in any way related to the original PR, I’d rather keep things simple and merge the original PR first and then apply the darwin fix on top of it.

1 Like
82

An RFC42 PR waiting to be merged
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/253428

83

I’m new to contributing to NixOS, may I know what are the next steps to get reviewers to this PR →

I don’t see an option to attach reviewers etc.

What would be a normal ETA for such things?

Thank you

84

@siddarthkay , there is PRs ready for review _ that seems more adequate to start with.

1 Like
85

I need Darwin gurus to fix the issues in this package:

Also, I would like some Darwin user to share maintainership, but not urgent.

86

I need Darwin gurus to take a look at this PR pls, its a macOS only package and it has 2 approvals.
Looking for next steps to merge.

Thank you.!

87

Hey, can we get the “shiny” python library merged? (and shinywidgets and htmltools)

There is an (now outdated) PR here: python310Packages.{shiny, rsconnect_*} by nviets · Pull Request #231189 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub

88

Any help to get these merged would be greatly appreciated:

89

Reminder that this thread is for PRs that have you stumped and need input to get unstuck.
If what you’re requesting is a review/merge, then please at least first post a couple of times in PRs ready for review _

90

Likely should’ve posted here in the first place, but created a separate help request at: Help with packaging complex Rust library

Basically looking for someone with more familiarity with packaging Rust libraries to help me out.

91

What’s the best way to deal with an upstream which reissues tarballs that have different hashes?

92

Maybe using raw rev hash?

93

I have a really simple PR from @tomberek here that got a bit stuck: minecraft: warn of failure by tomberek · Pull Request #299645 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub

Specifically:

that said, it looks like emitting something to stderr causes the ofborg-eval step to fail. perhaps it’s not possible to use builtins.trace here after all.

This is (ab)using builtins.trace to show a message alongside broken = true, and the only thing the PR in question does. Does anyone happen to know how to bypass that for what I’d consider a legitimate error/warning message?

94

Got a few that got stuck. If anyone could point me in the direction of some docs for the workflow of getting packages merged, it’s not clear to me why they’re in limbo or who to contact.

95

I have a small change in documentation that may be considered a small policy change:

I reached an agreement with one reviewer that the change is right, and no other reviewer responded to the review requets. Anyway it’d be nice to get an additional approval from someone else.

96

need darwin and folks that use xcode-wrapper to take a look at this PR xcodeenv: accept version & perform runtime checks by siddarthkay · Pull Request #324248 · NixOS/nixpkgs · GitHub
we use it in one of our repos and this change works well for us.
PR is approved but hasn’t been merged yet

97

I have a few variants of Python packages I want to add to Nixpkgs - related to Numpy 2. In order to do that I had to perform a few other changes that might be considered objectively good changes. I’m fairly confident about the idea of this PR but not about the implementation details. Would be happy to get a 2nd eye on this (also the initial reviewer didn’t reply to my comments and changes that followed their review):