openrazer: init at 2.6.0

[evanjs]

Motivation for this change

Picking up on #47009
It would be nice to be able to configure Razer stuff from NixOS, etc

Things done

• Kernel drivers for talking to Razer products (keyboards, mice, etc.)
• Daemon for talking to the kernel drivers.
• Python library for talking to the daemon.
• NixOS module hardware.openrazer which adds the kernel drivers and
  daemon to a system.

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
• 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 nix-review --run "nix-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.

---

One question, though:
As this is in place of another PR that went silent, should I edit maintainers and just add myself? Not sure what the proper route is.

[alexarice]

Whatever the situation with the maintainer is, the addition to maintainers.nix should probably be a separate commit. OfBorg is saying there is some error in the meta though I couldn't see it straight away

[FRidh]

Comments made in the other PR need to be addressed.

[evanjs]

Comments made in the other PR need to be addressed.

Oops! Must've resolved the wrong commit.

To confirm: Do I need to rewrite all openrazer expressions in all-packages and python-packages to be under pkgs/development/python-modules/*, or just those in python-packages?

[infinisil]

Both this and above make command make more sense in buildPhase, because it's really the thing that builds it, not some pre/post action

[evanjs]

Between the rejected patch and postBuild, I was unable to get this working within the normal buildPhase. Any other thoughts on what might work?

[evanjs]

Pretty much all the aforementioned changes have been made, thanks!

The one blocker I have right now is the kernel module, and how to access the src submodule if part of this is being moved to python-modules (per @FRidh)

That, and I'm still sort of new to modules and not sure how to deal with kernelPackages.
e.g. error: attribute 'openrazer' missing

context: boot.extraModulePackages = [ config.boot.kernelPackages.openrazer ];

Though I'm assuming this is related to the split between python-modules and os-specific/linux.

[infinisil]

Forgot to push? Because I can't see any changes :)

[evanjs]

Forgot to push? Because I can't see any changes :)

Yeah, I thought about that after I posted 😀
I discovered linuxPackagesFor, anyway, and I was able to configure and rebuild with openrazer enabled.

Going to look it over once more and push for further review.

[evanjs]

Comments made in the other PR need to be addressed.

@FRidh Still a little lost on how this needs to be split between os-specific and python-modules; Please let me know if I need to change anything else related to the paths.

[infinisil]

I think the changes look mostly good, but now the commit history should be cleaned up: an initial commit for adding the maintainer (which is okay with being added I hope), then a separate commit for each package, and a final one for the NixOS module

[evanjs]

I think the changes look mostly good, but now the commit history should be cleaned up: an initial commit for adding the maintainer (which is okay with being added I hope), then a separate commit for each package, and a final one for the NixOS module

Otherwise, I can just add myself, and add them if they ask in the future 🤷‍♂

[z3ntu]

Maybe it would be beneficial to update this PR to v2.6.0?

[evanjs]

Maybe it would be beneficial to update this PR to v2.6.0?

Without any changes outside of removing the patch that was merged since 2.3.1, 2.6.0 seems to work fine without any other changes.

@infinisil @FRidh Is bumping like this during PRs okay?

[infinisil]

Sounds fine to me, assuming you'll test the new version as well. I'd be fine without a bump too though, can always be updated later, and any package is better than none.

[evanjs]

Sounds fine to me, assuming you'll test the new version as well. I'd be fine without a bump too though, can always be updated later, and any package is better than none.

Sounds good. Bumped and rebased using the commit order @infinisil requested and building once more to make sure it still runs. Building on master is fun 😴

[evanjs]

Okay, everything has been tested once more and verified running on 2.6.0, systemctl status, modinfo razerkbd, etc.
Please let me know if there is anything else you guys can think of.
Thanks again for the reviews!

[disassembler]

This looks good to me. @infinisil @FRidh any additional requests or can this be merged?

[infinisil]

LGTM

[alkeryn]

hey guys, sorry for the bump but do you know how i could use an overlay to override the package's src ?