[staging 24.11]: libical: 3.0.18 -> 3.0.20

[matthiasbeyer]

Not sure whether this is the right branch to target... 👀

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• 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/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 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
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[vcunat]

The branch is correct, but cherry-picking for backports should be done with -x, so that you record from which commit the backport happened. That's documented in
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#manually-backporting-changes

[matthiasbeyer]

meh, good catch. I normally do that.

[matthiasbeyer]

Updated.

[vcunat]

Where's the libical 3.0.20 from? I fail to see it on open nixpkgs PRs or staging branch. And you used commit hashes that don't exist in the nixpkgs repo. By the way, the CI is also complaining about the same.

The reference in the first commit should be 4a22717 (but it's easy to find at least).

[matthiasbeyer]

That's really interesting. AFAICR, I git log master -- path/to/libbicaled and cherry-picked these commits. I will recreate this next week and we'll see.

[matthiasbeyer]

Hm, I fail to see what I messed up here, really.

I rebased the PR and removed the 3.0.18 -> 3.0.19 patch, which already landed. Now this only contains one commit that updates the package to 3.0.20, which is the latest version.

[vcunat]

Well, but we first want the update to staging and after that pick it to staging-24.11, right?

[matthiasbeyer]

You're right. PR here: #392708

[wolfgangwalther]

With 25.05 released and 24.11 on its way out, do we still need this backport?

[matthiasbeyer]

Probably not 😉

[vcunat]

I forgot about this.