kdigger: init at 1.2.0 #177868
kdigger: init at 1.2.0 #177868
Conversation
|
Related to #81418 |
|
Patch to simplify ldflags and clarify their purpose Since aarch64-linux and x86_64-darwin fail to build I've just marked this as x86_64-linux only |
ofborg
bot
added
10.rebuild-darwin: 0
and removed
10.rebuild-darwin: 1
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10
labels
|
|
||
| preBuild = '' | ||
| ldflags+=" -X github.com/quarkslab/kdigger/commands.GITCOMMIT=$(cat COMMIT)" | ||
| ldflags+=" -X github.com/quarkslab/kdigger/commands.BUILDERARCH=$(uname -m)" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| ldflags+=" -X github.com/quarkslab/kdigger/commands.BUILDERARCH=$(uname -m)" |
Thats impure.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How so, shouldn't it always be x86-64 on an x86_64 builder and aarch64 if crosscompiled for x86_64-linux from an aarch64-linux platform?
It doesnt have other details like kernel label/name/whatever, date, etc
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess I can pull an equivalent value from stdenv somewhere
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, you're right. I thought it includes the x86_64 variants but we still shouldn't use it because it depends on the build machine and not the nixpkgs platform. Also it probably breaks easily on binfmt.
|
Successfully created backport PR #178067 for |
Description of changes
Package kdigger for nixpkgs @ 1.2.0
https://github.com/quarkslab/kdigger
Wait to see if x86_64-darwin builds
Things done
sandbox = trueset innix.conf? (See Nix manual)nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.shto update generated release notes