-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 15k
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
autoPatchelfHook: fix bug introduced by #101142 #106830
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixes the issue on my end.
Seems to fix it. While we're here, maybe we should clean up the Shellcheck warnings, and note why we should ignore the return value in a comment:
|
All the SC2154 warnings look like they're all input variables, so those can probably be silenced FWIW. |
Fixed or silenced all red and orange shellcheck warnings. Please review |
Let's keep this targeting master, rebuilds of packages that need patchelf are typically fast. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks good, a comment on ldd to explain why we're ignoring that return would be helpful before committing but I'm approving since others are blocked on this review.
9506bfc
to
e815bf1
Compare
I added a comment explaining why we return on a failing ldd/sed command. |
#!/usr/bin/env bash | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the reason for this? The file is not executable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I added this to make shellcheck happy.
I really hate the very concept of this file (the reason being that I think "owner" implies some form of BDFL rather than just being notified), but since there were recent[1] changes[2] in auto-patchelf.sh which I missed it's probably a good idea to add myself there solely for being notified, because ofborg can't seem to infer maintainer information here. To make indentation consistent with all the other entries in the codeowners file, I also re-indented the other entries in the "Nixpkgs Internals" block. [1]: NixOS#101142 [2]: NixOS#106830 Signed-off-by: aszlig <[email protected]>
Fixes breakage intrduced by #101142
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)