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

Don't update packages pinned to specific version #23

Open
dotlambda opened this Issue Mar 20, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@dotlambda
Copy link

dotlambda commented Mar 20, 2018

In NixOS/nixpkgs#37474, you tried to update libgit2_0_25 to version 0.26.3, which doesn't make sense.

@ryantm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

ryantm commented Mar 23, 2018

There are lot of different version formats in attr paths. Here's a list of ones I know about:

attrpath format example version represented
name(MAJORDIGIT)(MINORDIGIT) qt56 5.6.x
name(major) icu58 58.x
name(majordigit)(minor) autoconf213 2.13
name(majordigit)(minor)x automake111x 1.11.x
name(digit_not_in_version)(major)(minor) libgit2_0_25 0.25.x
name-(major)-(minor)-(patch) libsigrok-0-3-0 0.3.0
name_(major)_(minor) apacheKafka_0_10 0.10.x
name-(major)_(minor) dbus-sharp-glib-2_0 2.0.x
name(major)_(minor) antlr3_5 3.5.x
name(major) bison3 3.x.x
name(digit_not_in_version) automoc4 x.x.x
name_(date) fplll_20160331 20160331
name owncloud-client x.x.x
name(unrelatednumbers) libavc1394 x.x.x
@jtojnar

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

jtojnar commented Apr 8, 2018

Maybe nixpkgs should have a policy for this.

@ryantm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

ryantm commented Apr 8, 2018

There is a policy for naming the files, but not the attr paths.

@ryantm ryantm added the bug label Apr 8, 2018

@ryantm

This comment has been minimized.

@ryantm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

ryantm commented May 21, 2018

@FRidh

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

FRidh commented Jul 22, 2018

On the mailing list I proposed a meta attribute for this "Proposal new meta attribute: meta.permitAutoUpgrade".

For the Python package set I would like to introduce a new meta attribute to indicate to update scripts whether the package may be upgraded to a newer version. The motivation is that I want to exclude some packages from my update script. While I am only interest in Python packages, I think it is good to consider the whole of Nixpkgs before introducing attributes like these.

I propose an attribute meta.permitAutoUpgade which takes either a boolean, or one of "major", "minor", "patch". When set to true, the package may be upgraded to any version, and when set to false tools should not update the expression. When "major" is set major version upgrades may be performed; this is effectively the same as passing true. With "minor" only minor upgrades and "patch" only patch-level updates.

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