Skip to content
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

Abort Qt builds that do not use a supported deriver #70691

Closed
wants to merge 5 commits into from

Conversation

@ttuegel
Copy link
Member

@ttuegel ttuegel commented Oct 8, 2019

Motivation for this change

This will give package maintainers faster feedback to potential build and runtime problems.

See also: #65399 (comment)

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nix-review --run "nix-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Notify maintainers

cc @

bkchr
bkchr approved these changes Oct 8, 2019
@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace worldofpeace commented Oct 8, 2019

Things that use mkDerivationWith fail to build like kcc. How about a check in the qtbase setup hook that wrapQtAppsHook is present?

@ttuegel
Copy link
Member Author

@ttuegel ttuegel commented Oct 8, 2019

Things that use mkDerivationWith fail to build like kcc. How about a check in the qtbase setup hook that wrapQtAppsHook is present?

This satisfies things that use mkDerivationWith, but it will break things that don't use any Qt deriver. It is not sufficient to only use wrapQtAppsHook.

@worldofpeace
Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace worldofpeace commented Oct 8, 2019

Oh, I wasn't looking carefully at the build output for kcc and it's actually pyqt that fails because it doesn't use mkDerivationWith. I'll anticipate things like

also failing to build, but they're improper fixes anyway.

Copy link
Contributor

@worldofpeace worldofpeace left a comment

Seems right to me 👍 Aborting seems more friendly TBH.

@worldofpeace worldofpeace requested a review from samueldr Oct 8, 2019
@ofborg ofborg bot requested a review from bkchr Oct 10, 2019
@ttuegel ttuegel mentioned this pull request Oct 13, 2019
12 tasks
@FRidh FRidh added this to WIP in Staging Nov 3, 2019
@periklis periklis removed their request for review Feb 19, 2020
@nixos-discourse
Copy link

@nixos-discourse nixos-discourse commented Mar 27, 2020

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/please-fix-all-packages-which-were-broken-by-the-qt-wrapping-changes/6444/10

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

@nixos-discourse nixos-discourse commented Mar 28, 2020

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/please-fix-all-packages-which-were-broken-by-the-qt-wrapping-changes/6444/16

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

@nixos-discourse nixos-discourse commented Mar 30, 2020

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/please-fix-all-packages-which-were-broken-by-the-qt-wrapping-changes/6444/19

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

@nixos-discourse nixos-discourse commented Mar 30, 2020

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/please-fix-all-packages-which-were-broken-by-the-qt-wrapping-changes/6444/20

@nixos-discourse
Copy link

@nixos-discourse nixos-discourse commented Apr 11, 2020

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/declarative-wrappers-another-idea/6661/1

@stale
Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Oct 9, 2020

Hello, I'm a bot and I thank you in the name of the community for your contributions.

Nixpkgs is a busy repository, and unfortunately sometimes PRs get left behind for too long. Nevertheless, we'd like to help committers reach the PRs that are still important. This PR has had no activity for 180 days, and so I marked it as stale, but you can rest assured it will never be closed by a non-human.

If this is still important to you and you'd like to remove the stale label, we ask that you leave a comment. Your comment can be as simple as "still important to me". But there's a bit more you can do:

If you received an approval by an unprivileged maintainer and you are just waiting for a merge, you can @ mention someone with merge permissions and ask them to help. You might be able to find someone relevant by using Git blame on the relevant files, or via GitHub's web interface. You can see if someone's a member of the nixpkgs-committers team, by hovering with the mouse over their username on the web interface, or by searching them directly on the list.

If your PR wasn't reviewed at all, it might help to find someone who's perhaps a user of the package or module you are changing, or alternatively, ask once more for a review by the maintainer of the package/module this is about. If you don't know any, you can use Git blame on the relevant files, or GitHub's web interface to find someone who touched the relevant files in the past.

If your PR has had reviews and nevertheless got stale, make sure you've responded to all of the reviewer's requests / questions. Usually when PR authors show responsibility and dedication, reviewers (privileged or not) show dedication as well. If you've pushed a change, it's possible the reviewer wasn't notified about your push via email, so you can always officially request them for a review, or just @ mention them and say you've addressed their comments.

Lastly, you can always ask for help at our Discourse Forum, or more specifically, at this thread or at #nixos' IRC channel.

@stale stale bot added the 2.status: stale label Oct 9, 2020
@samueldr
Copy link
Member

@samueldr samueldr commented Oct 10, 2020

This would still be needed.

This would also need to detect using mixed Qt versions.

@stale stale bot removed the 2.status: stale label Oct 10, 2020
@veprbl
Copy link
Member

@veprbl veprbl commented Oct 10, 2020

Would be better to instead make Qt to behave more like a normal nixpkgs library #71089

@samueldr
Copy link
Member

@samueldr samueldr commented Oct 10, 2020

Sure, though detecting mixed Qt would be needed anyway.

@ttuegel
Copy link
Member Author

@ttuegel ttuegel commented Oct 12, 2020

This is neither necessary nor useful to detect mixed Qt versions.

@ttuegel ttuegel closed this Oct 12, 2020
Staging automation moved this from WIP to Done Oct 12, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Staging
  
Done
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants