-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17.5k
box2d: 2.4.2 -> 3.1.0 #340470
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
box2d: 2.4.2 -> 3.1.0 #340470
Conversation
|
Currently fails with: |
5d404de to
8fa293a
Compare
|
Not sure that my |
Did you try |
It works better thanks, but still fails with: |
|
erincatto/box2d#784 might fix that. |
Thanks ! I was able to cherry-pick the necessary fixes. previous version new version: |
|
Considering box2d 3.0 is not compatible with the 2.x version (which has been renamed to box2d-lite https://github.com/erincatto/box2d-lite), it would probably be nice to have box2d-lite also available when this gets merged to make migrations easier on the projects that depend on the current 2.x version. |
3491b56 to
fade7e3
Compare
18b6671 to
0240249
Compare
For future reference, you could have also passed
Seems like they only recovered the |
|
I discussed with the maintainer on Discord about the cmake failures. |
26c8710 to
687f9f4
Compare
1f283c0 to
6d93d53
Compare
|
Sorry, there has been a long pause in this PR. I have updated it now that 3.1.0 is out and that the CMake issues have been fixed. I have prepared the packaging of box2d-light on a separate branch. It builds fine but the CMake contains no rules for installation, so I need to work on it some more.
My only interaction with upstream happened on Discord a few months ago when I was trying to build 3.0.0. I was facing the aforementioned CMake issues and they told me to wait for 3.1.0. I can add myself as a maintainer if you wish. |
|
Libreoffice fails to build with this new box2d version. Do you have any information about this @7c6f434c? |
|
I have ended up opening a PR adding box2d-lite: #400336. In the end, I have added |
pkgs/by-name/bo/box2d_2/package.nix
Outdated
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.
My personal opinion is that whenever we can we should be maintaining just one Nix expression callPackage-d or overrideAttrs-ed with different arguments, because this way we implicitly test their stability wrto overrides. Ofc there's no consensus around that and this comment is not blocking
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.
I think if v2 expression is simpler and unlikely to change much, it makes all the sense to keep it separate and frozen; overrides makes sense when we expect more common changes to both versions than divergent changes.
|
Outside the updater question, looks good to go |
|
I removed the updater from |
Description of changes
Changelogs:
Diff: erincatto/box2d@v2.4.2...v3.1.0
cc @raskin
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-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.