woeusb-ng: init at 0.2.10

[Stunkymonkey]

Motivation for this change

woeusb is beeing rewritten in python: https://github.com/WoeUSB/WoeUSB-ng

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 22.05 Release Notes (or backporting 21.11 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[Stunkymonkey]

maybe @bjornfor maintaining woeusb can comment on this?

[bjornfor]

I think it'd be nice to ask upstream what we should package. Both? Or one of them? What do they recommend for users? (I personally have no opinion.)

[Stunkymonkey]

@bjornfor the maintainer suggested in splitting up. So from my point of view the PR is complete.

[bjornfor]

The way I read it (question and answer) was about splitting gui and cli, not about woeusb vs the new rewrite: woeusb-ng. So I'm as confused as before which package upstream recommends to users.

[Stunkymonkey]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question.

[Stunkymonkey]

since the parameters are different i suggest to add it as a new package.

[Stunkymonkey]

should all be fixed.