stown: new package contribution#389975
stown: new package contribution#389975GaetanLepage merged 2 commits intoNixOS:masterfrom rseichter:add-maintainer
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
the
8.has: maintainer-list (update)
NixOSInfra
added
the
12.first-time contribution
rseichter
changed the title
SigmaSquadron
left a comment
SigmaSquadron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Welcome to Nixpkgs! Please review the commit conventions for maintainers/; your maintainer commit should be named maintainers: add rseichter.
SigmaSquadron
added
the
11.by: upstream-developer
In preparation for an upcoming new package contribution.
|
@SigmaSquadron Thank you for the review, that was mighty fast. I hope I addressed the points you mentioned in the proper way. My original package.nix was mostly a copy of an existing Python package build, and I opted to make as few changes as possible, seeing how this is my first ever Nix package contribution. Please let me know if anything else needs fixing. |
github-actions
bot
added
10.rebuild-darwin: 1
SigmaSquadron
left a comment
SigmaSquadron
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! The binary seems to build and run just fine.
nixpkgs-review result
Generated using nixpkgs-review.
Command: nixpkgs-review pr 389975
x86_64-linux
✅ 2 packages built:
- stown
- stown.dist
SigmaSquadron
added
the
12.approvals: 1
|
@SigmaSquadron Just to make sure that I understand the process correctly: At this point I don't need to take any further action on my end, unless specifically told to do so, correct? In other words, I just wait for this pull request to be merged eventually? |
|
That's right. Soon enough a committer will find this PR, conduct a final review, and merge it. |
pkgs/by-name/st/stown/package.nix
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| python3Packages.unittestCheckHook | |
| python3Packages.pytestCheckHook |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The upstream tests are written and intended for unittest exclusively. While they should theoretically work with pytest, that is neither guaranteed nor verified, so I don't feel comfortable introducing a dependency for the NixOS package alone.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I might be wrong, but some maintainer once told me that pytestCheckHook is preferred when possible. No change has to be done upstream.
Wdyt @SuperSandro2000?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I asked confirmation on the python matrix channel, and hexa confirmed that pytest should be preferred.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Understood. I switched to pytest as you requested, with the caveat that if tests should fail at some point in the future, that constitutes what Douglas Adams classifies as Somebody Else's Problem. Others may prefer pytest, but I am planning to stick with Python's internal unittest framework for this package's upstream development. This is not meant to cause a fuzz, just for clarification.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure! By no means nixpkgs packaging should enforce this kind of decision in the upstream repo.
The decision here was only to run your tests with pytest rather than with unittest.
If for some reason it would not have been possible, we would have fallback to unittest. You are rightfully free to do whatever you want upstream :)
|
Manage file system object mapping via symlinks. Lightweight alternative to GNU Stow. Signed-off-by: Ralph Seichter <github@seichter.de>
|
GaetanLepage
left a comment
GaetanLepage
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @rseichter !
|
Thank you @GaetanLepage and @SigmaSquadron for your time helping me with this PR. Have a nice weekend. |
4 participants
New package "stown", new maintainer entry.