-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18k
Xfce updates #223671
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
Xfce updates #223671
Conversation
|
@ofborg test xfce |
|
Rebuilt my laptop to f94262a with |
|
Result of 1 package marked as broken and skipped:
3 packages failed to build:
88 packages built:
|
|
Hmmm, I think they are marked as broken |
They are marked as broken, indeed. I don't know why nixpkgs-review did not classify them as broken. |
|
Result of 4 packages marked as broken and skipped:
51 packages built:
|
|
(The above one is generated by nixpkgs-review 2.8.0) Are you interested in doing bisects right now since I have some $work to deal with and cannot do that fast 😿 ? Since things work fine 2 weeks ago in #221278 (I pasted a nixpkgs-review in the opening), I would probably blame the nixpkgs-review update, which happened a week ago in #222211. It sounds like using 2.8.0 with Mic92/nixpkgs-review@3193e60 backported (due to a 400 issue) things work fine. So we likely only need to bisect Mic92/nixpkgs-review@2.8.0...2.9.0. |
|
Currently I have nixpkgs-review 2.9.0 on my system. But I am not interested in doing bisects now, as I am in hurry with other things. |
|
Did not bisect, probably Mic92/nixpkgs-review#315 is the reason, passing |

Description of changes
Notably contains crash fix(es) for glib 2.76
Things done
sandbox = trueset innix.conf? (See Nix manual)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)