xpra: 2.3.4 -> 2.5, unbreak?

[dtzWill]

Motivation for this change

It builds and bits seem to almost work,
would be nice to try it in a VM with the xpra module enabled or
something?

May want to fix default paths for things like sockets
in order to get usage other than via NixOS module working.

Thoughts/comments/testing appreciated :).

Things done

• 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)
• Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

[dtzWill]

Previously: #51877 (and others linked from there)

[aanderse]

I'm going to guess that #58589 has fixed the broken build on aarch64-linux.

@GrahamcOfBorg build xpra

[aanderse]

Results of nix-review:

1 package failed to build:
winswitch

2 package were build:
run-scaled xpra

[c0bw3b]

I think we can just mark winswitch as broken..
Its last commit was in Nov. 2016 for compat with Xpra 1.0

[Ekleog]

LGTM! @dtzWill, any reason not to merge (potentially after having marked winswitch as broken)? :)

[dtzWill]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2019 12:26:45 -0700, Léo Gaspard ***@***.***> wrote: Ekleog approved this pull request. LGTM! @dtzWill, any reason not to merge (potentially after having marked `winswitch` as broken)? :) -- You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #58151 (review) part: text/html

Sounds good! I just was unable (not in the right position/context) to check it worked in any capacity, but if it looks to work then ship it! :) (modulo marking winswitch as broken--which it effectively already is due to its dep on xpra, right?)

[Ekleog]

Right, AFAIU if a dep is broken then the package can't be built without having allowed the dep, so marking it as broken should not make anything additional broken.