PRs ready for review _

afh · February 19, 2024, 4:03am

Two PRs that may take a while to review, agree on and get merged, yet could be useful or even important to consider for 24.05.

github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

Refactor texinfo and update 7.0.3 -> 7.1

NixOS:staging ← afh:refactor-update-texinfo

opened 08:08AM - 18 Feb 24 UTC

afh

+131 -97

ℹ️ This draft PR is my understanding of how the texinfo package could be improve…d based off [@AndersonTorres' comment](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/262276#issuecomment-1950275968) on #262276 and work on `nv-codec-headers` (see #287918). ### texinfo 7.0.3 -> 7.1 Diff: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/diff/?id=texinfo-7.0.3&id2=texinfo-7.1 Changelog: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/texinfo.git/tree/ChangeLog?h=texinfo-7.1 ### TODO - [ ] If this PR is headed in the right direction and people see value in pursuing this approach close #262276 in favour of this one. ## Description of changes * Modernize `texinfo/4.13a.nix` by using `finalAttrs` and `hash` * I decided not to refactor `texinfo/4.13a.nix` into `texinfo/default.nix` (see below) as it shares no common attributes with the other texinfo versions apart from `meta` * Modernize `texinfo/common.nix` by removing top-level `with lib`, using `hash`, and adding `meta.mainProgram` * Fix `texinfo/common.nix` by adding missing `libiconv` input * Refactor individual texinfo version-specific nix files into generic `texinfo/default.nix` and * Rename texinfo version packages to fit with [nixpkgs Package naming convention](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/README.md#package-naming), e.g. `texinfo6_5` -> `texinfo_6_5`. * Adapt `all-packages.nix` according to the changes above * Replace `texinfo_7_0` with `texinfo_7_1` * Default to `texinfo_7_1` ## Things I kindly request feedback on - [ ] At first glance it seems no package specifically requires texinfo 7.0.3, therefore I assume 7.0.3 can be replaced with 7.1. If ofborg tests pass are people on board with this or should the texinfo 7.0.3 package continue to exist in nixpkgs? - [ ] Is there a better way to manage the `meta` attributes? - [ ] Do folks agree that the `mainProgram` should indeed be `texi2any`? - [ ] This PR retains the `texinfo[4567]` names, yet this PR seems also like a good opportunity to either rename or remove them and change all dependent package. - [ ] Should the way packages refer to a specific texinfo version be unified? If yes, which of the following existing appraoches is then preferred? Ⓐ or Ⓑ? #### Ⓐ The following packages reference a texinfo version specific package directly: * [allegro](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/development/libraries/allegro/default.nix) (texinfo 6.5) * [gcc48](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/development/compilers/gcc/all.nix) (`texinfo5`, i.e. texinfo 5.2) * [ne](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/applications/editors/ne/default.nix) (`texinfo6`, i.e. texinfo 6.8) * [singular](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/applications/science/math/singular/default.nix) (`texinfo4`, i.e. texinfo 4.13a) * [eukleides](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/applications/science/math/eukleides/default.nix) (`texinfo4`, i.e. texinfo 4.13a) #### Ⓑ whereas the following packages have a `texinfo` input, which is set to a specific texinfo version in `all-packages.nix`: * [fwknop](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/e85de28405879e43c2f36a737b278ef4b966dc1e/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix#L8405) (texinfo 6.7) * [mitscheme](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/e85de28405879e43c2f36a737b278ef4b966dc1e/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix#L16664) (`texinfo6`, i.e texinfo 6.8) * [gpm](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/e85de28405879e43c2f36a737b278ef4b966dc1e/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix#L27728) (texinfo 6.7) * [iksemel](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/e85de28405879e43c2f36a737b278ef4b966dc1e/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix#L32594) (texinfo 6.7)  ## 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](https://nixos.org/manual/nix/stable/command-ref/conf-file.html)) - [ ] `sandbox = relaxed` - [ ] `sandbox = true` - [ ] Tested, as applicable: - [NixOS test(s)](https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/unstable/index.html#sec-nixos-tests) (look inside [nixos/tests](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests)) - and/or [package tests](https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#sec-package-tests) - or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in [lib/tests](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/tests) or [pkgs/test](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/test) - made sure NixOS tests are [linked](https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#ssec-nixos-tests-linking) 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](https://github.com/Mic92/nixpkgs-review#usage) - [ ] Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in `./result/bin/`) - [24.05 Release Notes](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2405.section.md) (or backporting [23.05](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2305.section.md) and [23.11](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2311.section.md) 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](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md).  --- Add a :+1: [reaction] to [pull requests you find important]. [reaction]: https://github.blog/2016-03-10-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments/ [pull requests you find important]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc

github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs

Refactor icu and init 74.2

NixOS:staging ← afh:refactor-init-icu

opened 07:17PM - 18 Feb 24 UTC

afh

+111 -111

ℹ️ This draft PR is my understanding of how the icu package could be improved in… a similar vein as #289690. ### TODO If this PR is headed in the right direction and people see value in pursuing this approach close the following PRs - [ ] #289782 - [ ] #289783 ## Description of changes  * Add `icu/default.nix` containing the icu version specific packages * Remove `icu/[0-9]*.nix` * Use `hash` instead of `sha256` in `icu/base.nix` * Includes changes proposed in #289782 **icu73: use buildPackages.icu73 for nativeBuildRoot** * Update `all-packages.nix` accordingly using `callPackages` I'm uncertain whether the changes proposed here properly affect `buildPackages.icu[0-9]{2}` or whether more work is needed. I'd appreciated if someone could chime in on this. ## 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](https://nixos.org/manual/nix/stable/command-ref/conf-file.html)) - [ ] `sandbox = relaxed` - [ ] `sandbox = true` - [ ] Tested, as applicable: - [NixOS test(s)](https://nixos.org/manual/nixos/unstable/index.html#sec-nixos-tests) (look inside [nixos/tests](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/tests)) - and/or [package tests](https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#sec-package-tests) - or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in [lib/tests](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/lib/tests) or [pkgs/test](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/test) - made sure NixOS tests are [linked](https://nixos.org/manual/nixpkgs/unstable/#ssec-nixos-tests-linking) 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](https://github.com/Mic92/nixpkgs-review#usage) - [ ] Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in `./result/bin/`) - [24.05 Release Notes](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2405.section.md) (or backporting [23.05](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2305.section.md) and [23.11](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/nixos/doc/manual/release-notes/rl-2311.section.md) 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](https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md).  --- Add a :+1: [reaction] to [pull requests you find important]. [reaction]: https://github.blog/2016-03-10-add-reactions-to-pull-requests-issues-and-comments/ [pull requests you find important]: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+sort%3Areactions-%2B1-desc