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
dinoscore: init at 0.4.0 #223416
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
dinoscore: init at 0.4.0 #223416
Conversation
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.
Using pkgs/unit
from RFC 140 is not okay! For one, the RFC isn't accepted yet, meaning it might still change considerably or not even get accepted at all. And for another, a lot of thought went into trying to establish pkgs/unit
as a cleaner foundation, with CI checks to ensure units don't access files outside their unit, autocalling to remove the burden to edit all-packages.nix
, the limitation that you can't use them for non-packages for now, the establishment of package.nix
files, lowecasing of shards to avoid problems on Darwin, etc. These things have a point, they're not just extras.
And I find it rather disrespectful for you to just go ahead and open this PR without even pinging anybody from the RFC. The first PR to introduce a new convention sets a precedent, meaning that if this were merged, we can expect a lot of others to follow, which in turn causes a series of problems. And once people are used to something, that thing becomes the convention, even if it has functional problems.
In fact this is also exactly why we're in such a deep mess with Flakes right now, because Eelco just ended up pushing Flakes as experimental when the RFC struggled. People started using it despite being experimental, and now we're having a really hard time changing it. We cannot let that happen here.
If you like the idea of the RFC, then the best way to make it go faster is to help out with it, we're still looking for a shepherd after all, and until we find one we can't proceed with it.
This is not intended to be merged as-is, and I'm sorry for not making that more clear beforehand. Although currently I'm thinking of leaving this open until after RFC 140 has been merged … (provided that this happens within the next year or so) |
I see, no problem then, sorry for lashing out a bit! |
this is missing wrapGAppsHook: it crashes for me when opening the file dialog |
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/2023-04-03-nixpkgs-architecture-team-meeting-35/26950/1 |
I can't get the Python part to work properly, and I'm out of ideas :/ In short:
CC @dotlambda |
I think you can wrap the executable with a PYTHONPATH that contains pikepdf |
Thanks, it works now. I grepped for PYTHONPATH and found a lot of ways of how to set it, but among the results was |
Description of changes
This is marked as draft because I plan on releasing 0.4.1 with bug fixes soon.
Also I was sick of having to search for an appropriate location for the package, so I simply took
pkgs/unit/di
instead as suggested in NixOS/rfcs#140 for now :)Things done
sandbox = true
set 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/
)