New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
linux_lqx: init at 5.9.15 #107148
linux_lqx: init at 5.9.15 #107148
Conversation
/marvin opt-in |
Hi! I'm an experimental bot. My goal is to guide this PR through its stages, hopefully ending with a merge. You can read up on the usage here. |
Same source as linux_zen but with a release schedule that's not quite as bleeding edge. For example, it's currenly on the newest 5.9 release while linux_zen is already on 5.10 and won't release future 5.9 fixes. Originally meant for debianish Distros.
897337f
to
ff636d5
Compare
buildLinux (args // { | ||
modDirVersion = "${version}-lqx1"; | ||
inherit version; | ||
isZen = true; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Same source as zen, so I didn't bother adding isLqx
Result of 8 packages marked as broken and skipped:
17 packages failed to build:
56 packages built:
|
Result of 8 packages marked as broken and skipped:
15 packages failed to build:
61 packages built:
@timokau I think Marvin got confused. The PR is reviewed and should now be waiting on a merger. Could it be because I "reviewed" my own PR and it therefore didn't catch @andresilva's review? Or do they need to set needs_merger manually? Btw, you should get your membership fixed @andresilva, I can't even re-request a review from you. |
Yes, "needs merger" needs to be set explicitly since approval does not mean the same thing for everybody. This is actually a good example: It's clear that @andresilva ran nixpkgs-review on this. The approval may just mean that nixpkgs-review passed, or it may mean that they also read the diff in detail and think this is good for merge ("would do it themselves if they could"). Both are valuable contributions, but unfortunately marvin can't distinguish the two. So the "needs merge" label needs to be explicitly set as a "stronger"/more clearly defined version of approval. I don't like the UX of this very much, but I haven't come up with something much better yet either. I have thought of scanning for the word "merge" in the text of an approving review, maybe that will make it feel a bit more natural. There's still a bug here though. Marvin set the status to "awaiting changes" after your self review, which it shouldn't do. See timokau/marvin-mk2#104. |
Sorry for the inconvenience, I already tried to solve this. I was told that there used to be a bot doing this and it was "temporarily" disabled. I asked in Discord about how to deal with the membership manually and didn't get any replies. If anyone reading this comment has any suggestions on that please share :) |
For reference: NixOS/rfc39#3
The bottle-neck for manual membership additions is pretty thin. I think it requires owner permission, which only a handful of people have. I think that is why nobody is doing manual additions of maintainers: It doesn't scale, and if somebody starts to do it they would probably soon receive too many requests. So unfortunately there is not much you can do right now, except wait or contribute to NixOS/rfc39#3. |
Reminder: Please review! This Pull Request is awaiting review. If you are the assigned reviewer, please have a look. Try to find another reviewer if necessary. If you can't, please say so. If the status is not accurate, please change it. If nothing happens, this PR will be put back in the |
Taken from https://liquorix.net/ who use the same sauce in their kernel
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks!
I'm sure they're aware, they wrote the PR that fixed the bot ;) |
Motivation for this change
Same source as linux_zen but not quite as bleeding edge and stays on an older
version for longer (e.g. currenly on the newest 5.9 release while linux_zen is
already on 5.10)
Things done
sandbox
innix.conf
on non-NixOS linux)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
./result/bin/
)nix path-info -S
before and after)Result of
nixpkgs-review pr 107148
run on x86_64-linux 18 packages marked as broken and skipped:
17 packages failed to build:
56 packages built:
cc @andresilva