reckon: 0.6.0 -> 0.7.1

[raboof]

Motivation for this change

Particularly nice improvements:

• fail on unknown account
  in interactive mode
• use - to read from stdin

Things done

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

[raboof]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 112292 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built:

• reckon

[r-rmcgibbo]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 112292 at e3c67f05 run on aarch64-linux 1

1 package built:

• reckon

1 warning produced:

• warning: missing-phase-hooks

  installPhase should probably contain runHook preInstall and runHook postInstall.

  Near pkgs/tools/text/reckon/default.nix:11:3:

     |
  11 |   installPhase = let
     |   ^
  

[raboof]

  `installPhase` should probably contain `runHook preInstall` and `runHook postInstall`.

Fair enough, updated (though that was already there before this PR :) )

[SuperSandro2000]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 112292 run on x86_64-linux 1

This is not that useful because it does not validate if you used the right hashes.

[SuperSandro2000]

This is a semi-automatic executed nixpkgs-review with nixpkgs-review-checks extension. It is checked by a human on a best effort basis and does not build all packages (e.g. lumo, tensorflow or pytorch).
If you have any questions or problems please reach out to SuperSandro2000 on IRC.

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 112292 run on x86_64-darwin 1

1 package built:

• reckon

[raboof]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 112292 run on x86_64-linux 1

This is not that useful because it does not validate if you used the right hashes.

I'm not sure what you mean here?

Thanks for the merge!