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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

{python{Full,Packages},pypyPackages}: move unversioned aliases to aliases.nix #77535

Draft
wants to merge 181 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

@grahamc
Copy link
Member

@grahamc grahamc commented Jan 11, 2020

Motivation for this change

Require in-nixpkgs packages to use versioned names.

馃悕 馃 馃搲

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
  • 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 nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-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.
鈥ses.nix

Require in-nixpkgs packgaes to use versioned names.
@grahamc grahamc requested a review from FRidh Jan 11, 2020
@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

@grahamc grahamc commented Jan 11, 2020

Sort of an RFC PR.

@LnL7
Copy link
Member

@LnL7 LnL7 commented Jan 11, 2020

Python is part of the darwin stdenv bootstrapping, I think a bit of work is still needed to disambiguate it there.

@grahamc grahamc force-pushed the grahamc:unversioned-python-aliases branch from 12aca46 to d023ba0 Jan 11, 2020
@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

@grahamc grahamc commented Jan 11, 2020

release.nix's untested evaluates already 馃し鈥嶁檪锔

grahamc added 23 commits Jan 11, 2020
grahamc added 14 commits Jan 12, 2020
@grahamc
Copy link
Member Author

@grahamc grahamc commented Jan 12, 2020

The above ~180 package updates were done with this in one terminal:

while true; do sed -ie 's/python/python2/g' $(nix-env -f . -qaP --no-name --out-path --arg config '{ allowAliases = false; }' 2>&1 | tee /dev/stderr | head -n1 | cut -d' ' -f5 | cut -d: -f1); sleep 1; done

and me committing its changes in another terminal, note not all changes are good, so don't just blindly commit. you have to edit patches.

for f in $(git status | grep "modified:" | cut -d' ' -f4); do echo "$f"; git add -ip "$f"; echo -n "package name? "; read pname; git commit -m "$pname: python -> python2"; done

@FRidh
Copy link
Member

@FRidh FRidh commented Jan 12, 2020

Require in-nixpkgs packages to use versioned names.

What do we gain by that? In principle we should have only one version of a package (set), but we indeed choose in some cases to have multiple versions. Would you say that, in case one goes from a single attribute to multiple, the single name should no longer be permitted and a versioned one should always be used?

About the python to python2, I pointed out in earlier PR's that I am against doing it this way, and prefer us to try to migrate it to Python 3 first, and when that is not possible, set it to python2. Otherwise we may end up repeating a lot of work.

@LnL7 LnL7 mentioned this pull request Jan 13, 2020
3 of 10 tasks complete
@FRidh FRidh added this to WIP in Python 2 deprecation Jan 13, 2020
@veprbl veprbl removed the 6.topic: TeX label Mar 31, 2020
@stale
Copy link

@stale stale bot commented Sep 27, 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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants
You can鈥檛 perform that action at this time.