Conversation
|
How can I help land new Nix versions more quickly, especially ones that impact the default version of Nix delivered on unstable, as this one does? The present state of affairs -- a long list of reviewers, no reviews, no merges, and no pings -- seems sub-optimal. Let's get the hard work of the Nix team into the hands of the vast Nixpkgs community. Is the problem that the PR only has minimal information about what's included in the release and what defects it fixes? Do we need a PR template for Nix releases that helps generate merge excitement through listing the issues fixed? Or is the list of reviewers and maintainers subject to RFC55, where it's a historical artifact rather than a present reality? I'm a nixpkgs committer, but I feel a little less-than-empowered to just go ahead and merge in the face of this list of long-timers who may be intentionally taking no action for reasons I don't understand. 🙂 I'd like to be part of the solution. What's needed? |
|
|
I'm bisecting the |
This work you are doing to build, test, report issues is perfect! Thanks so much. |
This package often breaks because something else in nixpkgs breaks dependencies of |
In a twist of fate, I need it for work reasons, so the bisection is doing double duty. You're right that it's broken by a dependency, and an odd one at that. I bisected it to c55530f, committed as #353968. It doesn't block this PR in any case. |
philiptaron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All build failures are not this PR's fault. zon2nix fails on master, as does python313Packages.nix-kernel. Let's roll. 🚀
|
Successfully created backport PR for |
|
This was a breaking change that should not have been backported. |
Changes: NixOS/nix@2.24.11...2.24.12
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.