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
haxe: add 4.2.1 and update default version #116953
Conversation
7459600
to
03847da
Compare
03847da
to
bf0dbb4
Compare
@ofborg build neko haxe haxe_3_2 haxe_3_4 haxe_4_0 haxe_4_1 |
Looks good to me. |
Result of 10 packages built successfully:
3 suggestions:
Result of 2 packages marked as broken and skipped:
8 packages built successfully:
3 suggestions:
|
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.
LGTM, although I didn't take a detailed look at it, nor did I test it.
@sternenseemann If you're interested I could use help with hashlink as well. #116321 |
447b788
to
49f7f07
Compare
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). Result of 10 packages built:
The following issues got detected with the above build packages.
haxe:
warning: unclear-gpl Near pkgs/development/compilers/haxe/default.nix:107:9:
See: https://github.com/jtojnar/nixpkgs-hammering/blob/master/explanations/unclear-gpl.md |
49f7f07
to
7ae4214
Compare
@ofborg build neko haxe haxe_3_2 haxe_3_4 haxe_4_0 haxe_4_1 |
7d4fcb2
to
629ee6a
Compare
I've dropped |
84bbcc9
to
e33c0f3
Compare
Built lukaskj/haxe-example targets "cpp", "cs", "java" and "executable" (neko) on Haxe 4.2. All build results ran fine, either on their own or under their respective runtime. Locally packaged haxeui/hxWidgets + dependencies, built one of its sample GUI projects on Haxe 4.2 and 3.4 (this PR) and 3.4 (current master). All build results ran fine. (Used overlay for & screenshot of hxWidgets here)self: super: rec {
haxePackages = super.haxePackages // {
hscript = super.haxePackages.buildHaxeLib rec {
libname = "hscript";
version = "2.4.0";
sha256 = "0qdxgqb75j1v125l9xavs1d32wwzi60rhfymngdhjqhdvq72bhxx";
meta.description = "Haxe Script is a scripting engine for a subset of the Haxe language";
};
hxWidgets = super.haxePackages.buildHaxeLib rec {
libname = "hxWidgets";
version = "1.7.2";
sha256 = "1ki90m2qqyqmcmwd97id4ck9rr25dvdlnmfp53bg8prcyg41wbgf";
meta.description = "Haxe externs (and wrappers) for wxWidgets";
propagatedBuildInputs = with super; [ wxGTK31 libGL ];
};
};
haxetest = super.callPackage (
{ stdenv
, haxe, haxePackages
}:
stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
pname = "haxetest";
version = "irrelevant";
src = haxePackages.hxWidgets.src;
nativeBuildInputs = [ haxe ] ++ (with haxePackages; [ hxcpp hscript hxWidgets ]);
buildPhase = "cd samples/00-Showcase && haxe build.hxml";
installPhase = ''
install -Dm755 bin/Main $out/bin/00-Showcase
'';
}
) { };
} LGTM. |
Great, thank you for your help! If there aren't any other comments, I think we can merge and then (re)introduce 4.0 and 4.1 in the next PR! |
As a more complex test, I also managed to get Friday Night Funkin' compiled & running with Haxe 4.2, though only v0.2.7.1. Building the current master with some required patches gets… stuck? Haxelib, Neko and its GCC subprocesses just keep eating away at the CPU without any new compiled results. I assume its a problem with one of the dependencies/FNF and not Haxe/Neko itself. I'll still look forward to the 4.1 PR 🙂 |
e33c0f3
to
39b3b50
Compare
Co-authored-by: sternenseemann <0rpkxez4ksa01gb3typccl0i@systemli.org>
haxe_4_2: init at 4.2.1 haxe_3_4, haxe_3_2 still exist. Co-authored-by: Daniel Firth <dan.firth@homotopic.tech>
As a side note: This change shows why `with` can be dangerous business: It doesn't shadow any existing bindings which can be unexpected. If I were to use with licenses; [ … ] here, zlib in the with block would actually be the zlib passed via the function arguments instead of the zlib from licenses which would be expected. This was what caused the previous eval error.
Upstream specifies MIT and GPL2+ in its opam file, so we run with this. There doesn't seem to have been any license change and I couldn't track down the mentioned docs/license.txt.
39b3b50
to
7f91827
Compare
@ofborg build haxe_3_2 haxe_3_4 neko |
Motivation for this change
#116302 with a few cleanups and without removing the old compilers.
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)