-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
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
gnulib: Fix path to perl in prefix-gnulib-mk #274161
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Did we before rely on perl being in PATH or did we just never hit that code path? Also this should go to master, since it rebuilds only ~10 or so packages. |
6b42951
to
7436efb
Compare
7436efb
to
6185761
Compare
Thank you for your feedback, @SuperSandro2000, this PR's merge base has now been changed to Unfortunately I cannot answer that question with confidence, I assume that we never hit that code path. I only came across it while trying to manually build groff from within a |
I think if we can keep relying on PATH we can keep the build closures of all other packages smaller which would be need but perl is probably already somewhere in there |
Happy to look for alternative solutions, @SuperSandro2000 and maybe you have time and interest to partake in finding them. Inspecting gnulib's Inside and outside that build environment perl is Is there a way in nixpkgs with which What are some of the things you'd try? |
In the sandbox it is cleared.
We should probably replace the shebang on line 1 with a perl shebang to avoid this hackery. |
Thanks for the feedback and suggestion, @SuperSandro2000. |
d94c483
to
8e9e83e
Compare
I'd like to post this PR in the "PRs already reviewed" channel and kindly request re-review from you, @SuperSandro2000, as you've taken at look at this previously. |
Result of 32 packages built:
Shebang is properly patched as intended, and the executable seems to work. LGTM This seems to produce the only in-store reference to perl, which means the package previously was non-hermetic. There are other occurrences of files which tries to
|
8e9e83e
to
54f41cc
Compare
Result of 5 packages failed to build:
27 packages built:
from idutils build log:
idutils seems to perform many gnulib tests, does it assume a specific/vendored gnulib @gfrascadorio? EDIT: the tests seems to test
|
Friendly ping to @anthonyroussel, @SuperSandro2000, and @pbsds on this to have another look at the changes proposed in this PR 🙂 |
d90301e
to
f00622e
Compare
Thanks for the scrutinising review and and helpful comments, @pbsds and @SuperSandro2000, very much appreciated! For good measure I took the liberty to use |
Result of 8 packages marked as broken and skipped:
14 packages failed to build:
20 packages built:
idutils still fails.
the other failures also fail on hydra |
Thanks, @pbsds, I'll look into it. What's the difference between |
One cause for the build failures could be that the update-copyright script is not properly invoked from idutils as it appears odd to me that Here are links to gnulib's update-copyright (respecting the |
It expands to
I tried running the one currently in master, and it waits on stdin
|
Co-authored-by: Sandro <sandro.jaeckel@gmail.com>
Result of 1 package marked as broken and skipped:
8 packages built:
|
Apologies for the silence on this issue, folks. My attention was needed elsewhere. On the plus side: I now also have access to a What's curious is that |
Maybe it's alright to skip/disable the update-copyright test since:
What do people think? |
@pbsds I went ahead and disable the failing test on Linux. Would you have time and interest in having another look at giving it a try? |
This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/4139 |
Friendly ping to the current reviewers on this one 🙂 |
Description of changes
While building a custom groff using nixpkgs I came across the following error:
Inspecing
prefix-gnulib-mk
perl
is used in line 26. Hence replacingperl
with a proper path to perl in nix seems necessary.❓ Please let me know if you believe this PR should rather be applied to
master
thanstaging
. Since itThings done
nix.conf
? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxed
sandbox = true
nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD"
. Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/
)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.