rset: init at 2.1

[cstrahan]

Motivation for this change

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.

[r-rmcgibbo]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 120595 at e17b57a run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built successfully:

• rset

1 suggestion:

• warning: missing-patch-comment

  Please add a comment on the line above, explaining the purpose of this patch.
  Near pkgs/tools/admin/rset/default.nix:12:15:

     |
  12 |   patches = [ ./paths.patch ];
     |               ^
  

---

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 120595 at e17b57a run on aarch64-linux 1

1 package built successfully:

• rset

1 suggestion:

• warning: missing-patch-comment

  Please add a comment on the line above, explaining the purpose of this patch.
  Near pkgs/tools/admin/rset/default.nix:12:15:

     |
  12 |   patches = [ ./paths.patch ];
     |               ^
  

[SuperSandro2000]

Can we also just replace the bare binary names or does this cause issues?

[cstrahan]

It would be easy to over-replace, and there are cases like this where we need to patch anyway:

https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/120595/files#diff-00160293b5e7505f1d8a5f2bfd51a9d22acaceb39e66e785996f4342e4e3fdcdR104

I think, at that point, might as well patch the other binary names so they can be safely, selectively replaced.