vidmerger: init at 0.3.2

[ByteSudoer]

Description of changes

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)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked 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
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 24.05 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 and 23.11 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.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[ByteSudoer]

Changes requested in the review are applied.

[nixos-discourse]

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/3657

[lucasew]

Please squash the two last commits and name it the same as the PR name (vidmerger: init at 0.3.2)

[lucasew]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 297266 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• vidmerger

[lucasew]

Diff LGTM, it's working on my machine. I tested with some random Telegram videos

[ByteSudoer]

@lucasew I have squashed the two last commits. And waiting for your review when possible.Thx

[eclairevoyant]

@ByteSudoer Thanks for the work so far.

Just to reiterate my previous review, which remains to be addressed: this is an unfree package and the license should reflect this.

I'd recommend adding the "commons clause" (which is what makes it unfree) to the main licenses list (lib/licenses.nix) in a separate initial commit, as it is used by other projects. It can then be used in this package (meta.license can be a list).

[ByteSudoer]

@eclairevoyant I update both the lib/licenses.nix and the meta.license field. Thx for pointing out the missing changes

[lucasew]

Can you redo the commit that added the commons-clause license to lib.licenses without reformatting the file?

EDIT: this can be the reason of your PR is having a merge conflict to master now.

stale