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/)