busybox: 1.32.0 -> 1.32.1

[raboof]

Motivation for this change

Fixes #108675, a tty deadlock issue that affected one of the
texinfoInteractive tests.

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[Mindavi]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 108708 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package marked as broken and skipped:

• nix-exec

2 packages blacklisted:

• tests.nixos-functions.nixos-test
• tests.nixos-functions.nixosTest-test

72 packages built:

• bundix
• busybox
• busybox-sandbox-shell
• cabal2nix
• cachix
• common-updater-scripts
• crate2nix
• crystal2nix
• dep2nix
• disnix
• disnixos
• dydisnix
• epson-escpr2
• fcron
• fusionInventory
• go2nix
• haskellPackages.cachix
• haskellPackages.hercules-ci-agent
• haskellPackages.hocker
• haskellPackages.nix-paths
• haskellPackages.update-nix-fetchgit
• hercules-ci-agent
• hydra-unstable
• lazpaint
• libnixxml
• lightdm
• lightdm-enso-os-greeter
• lightdm-mini-greeter
• lightdm-tiny-greeter
• lightdm_gtk_greeter
• lightdm_qt
• lispPackages.quicklisp-to-nix
• lispPackages.quicklisp-to-nix-system-info
• molly-guard
• nix (nixStable)
• nix-bundle
• nix-direnv
• nix-doc
• nix-du
• nix-index
• nix-pin
• nix-plugins
• nix-prefetch
• nix-prefetch-bzr
• nix-prefetch-cvs
• nix-prefetch-docker
• nix-prefetch-git
• nix-prefetch-hg
• nix-prefetch-scripts
• nix-prefetch-svn
• nix-serve
• nix-update
• nix-update-source
• nixFlakes (nixUnstable)
• nixos-generators
• nixos-shell
• nixpkgs-review
• nixui
• pantheon.elementary-greeter
• pipework
• python37Packages.nix-kernel
• python37Packages.nixpkgs
• python37Packages.pythonix
• python38Packages.nix-kernel
• python38Packages.nixpkgs
• python38Packages.pythonix
• python39Packages.nix-kernel
• python39Packages.nixpkgs
• python39Packages.pythonix
• update-nix-fetchgit
• vgo2nix
• vulnix

Currently running the texinfo tests on this commit, but it still seems to hang after the t/split.sh.

[SuperSandro2000]

Suggested change

	name = "busybox-1.32.1";
	pname = "busybox";
	version = "1.32.1";

[SuperSandro2000]

Suggested change

	url = "https://busybox.net/downloads/${name}.tar.bz2";
	url = "https://busybox.net/downloads/${pname}-$[version}.tar.bz2";

[raboof]

while I agree it's better to split name into pname and version, I have to admit it's somewhat frustrating to see a bugfix being delayed by comments not directly related to the changes in the PR (that problem was already present on master). IMHO it would have been better to propose that improvement as a separate PR.

anyway, updated and tested nix-build pkgs/stdenv/linux/make-bootstrap-tools.nix -A test and nix-build '<nixpkgs>' -A texinfoInteractive --check still succeed

[Mindavi]

Also not in favor of adding that to every new PR. It doesn't seem like there's consensus on it anyways (I think I saw an RFC that was closed / denied) so I don't know what we want to do going forward.

[raboof]

It doesn't seem like there's consensus on it anyways

My impression is there is consensus on splitting the name into pname and version.

There are 2 'finer points' on which there might not be consensus, but neither of those apply here:

• there was an RFC discussing automatically deriving the name from pname and version. It seems that change was applied to nixpkgs before the RFC process had completed
• it's a bit unclear how to pname/version packages for which multiple branches exist side-by-side, and how to pname/version packages for which upstream doesn't explicitly tag/release versions

[Mindavi]

Oh, so it was applied to nixpkgs and then the RFC process was stopped, essentially 'forcing' the consensus? I looked at it and it was quite confusing, the discussion was just stopped with that closing statement.

Thanks for explaining that it is clear what direction we want to go 😄.

[TredwellGit]

This pull request is good, but it does not fix texinfoInteractive.

[SuperSandro2000]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 108708 run on x86_64-darwin 1

1 package marked as broken and skipped:

• fcron

[SuperSandro2000]

while I agree it's better to split name into pname and version, I have to admit it's somewhat frustrating to see a bugfix being delayed by comments not directly related to the changes in the PR (that problem was already present on master). IMHO it would have been better to propose that improvement as a separate PR.

If I got hold of someone we can also fix this. Not like it is delaying it by weeks.

A discussions about RFCs delays it far more.

Also not in favor of adding that to every new PR.

pname and version is required for a new packages and old one should adapt it.

It doesn't seem like there's consensus on it anyways (I think I saw an RFC that was closed / denied) so I don't know what we want to do going forward.

We don't have unstable here but I am going to explain it anyway. If there are two versions of a package the unstable of the unstable package goes into pname. If you track a git branch it goes to the version.

Also it does not matter if it gets changed later or not because it is going to be a treewide change and then it does not matter if 300 or 350 package get changed.

Also it took two days to get this merged so please do not complain about delaying something.