bitbox-bridge: init at 1.6.1

[izelnakri]

bitbox-bridge is an essential software that allows BitBox2 hardware wallets to communicate with the target machine for blockchain transactions.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Release notes)
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[ethancedwards8]

please do not use with lib; or anything like that. It increases eval times and is generally bad practice

[izelnakri]

I've removed it, however just for my curiousity & understanding, could you elaborate why it increases eval times? I'd appreciate a reference to the good practice(s) as well, it is my first nixpkgs contribution! :)

[izelnakri]

Requested changes done @ethancedwards8 , please have a look once more ;)

[HeitorAugustoLN]

Any reasons for disabled checks?

[izelnakri]

I just wanted to speed up package builds/re-installations. Would it not speed up the builds?

[ethancedwards8]

Always do checks. Build speed is irrelevant because hydra provides a binary cache.

[izelnakri]

So when I do nixos-rebuild or home-manager switch these checks won't run in CI? Just for my understanding, I removed the doCheck = false;

[ethancedwards8]

When this package is merged into Nixpkgs, the build will be created and checked by hydra and then a binary will be cached. Whenever you put this package into your config, your system will download the binary from cache.nixos.org. You will not have to build the package or run any tests on your system, those will be done by hydra.

[izelnakri]

Thanks for the good explanation @ethancedwards8 ! I guess I've worried about this because I've been cross-compiling an image for my Raspberry Pi, then these tests do run, however I suppose thats a good thing, as I assume there is no way to differentiate between a Hydra build and a cross-compilation build on local. Let me know if there is anything else needed for your approval of this PR ;) Thank you!

[izelnakri]

Hi @HeitorAugustoLN , I've done all the requested changes, and have one question regarding the doCheck. Could you have a look once more?

[izelnakri]

Hi @HeitorAugustoLN, looking forward to your approval as well. Let's get this merged! ;)

[HeitorAugustoLN]

Hi @HeitorAugustoLN, looking forward to your approval as well. Let's get this merged! ;)

Going to take a look at it soon

[HeitorAugustoLN]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 387888

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

[HeitorAugustoLN]

Package currently does not build on darwin because of this dependency

Suggested change

	buildInputs = [
	libudev-zero
	];
	buildInputs = lib.optionals stdenv.hostPlatform.isLinux [
	libudev-zero
	];

[izelnakri]

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out!

[HeitorAugustoLN]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 387888

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

x86_64-darwin

❌ 1 package failed to build:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-darwin

❌ 1 package failed to build:

• bitbox-bridge

[HeitorAugustoLN]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 387888

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

x86_64-darwin

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-darwin

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

[HeitorAugustoLN]

LGTM! Tested on linux and darwin

[izelnakri]

@SuperSandro2000 done the requested changes, please have a look/approve ;)

[izelnakri]

@SuperSandro2000 @JohnRTitor @ambroisie Can we get this PR merged? All the requested changes are made and I've 2 approvals already. Let me know if anything else is missing but I suppose this PR is ready to be merged.

[JohnRTitor]

Please migrate to the new finalAttrs pattern, consider rebasing to latest master first, as finalAttrs support got merged a while ago.

[ethancedwards8]

I'm going to push back on this. It is not yet clear that finalAttrs will be officially adopted and moved to treewide. Additionally, it increases eval times.

[HeitorAugustoLN]

it increases eval times

Not that significant increase to despise the advantages it has, in my opinion.

[izelnakri]

@JohnRTitor could you refer me to the finalAttrs pattern you mention more specifically?

I've found these links on the web but it is still NOT clear to me how I can achieve this here, perhaps you can provide a specimen?:

#194475
https://discourse.nixos.org/t/is-it-possible-to-override-cargosha256-in-buildrustpackage/4393/22
Merged PR: #234651

I'm still not sure how to implement this and there is no clear documentation it seems on what is being asked @JohnRTitor

[HeitorAugustoLN]

Take a look at https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/co/cosmic-files/package.nix#L12 for an example

[izelnakri]

@HeitorAugustoLN previously I could run:

nix-build -E 'with import <nixpkgs> { }; callPackage ./pkgs/by-name/bi/bitbox-bitbox/package.nix { }'

and it would build this package. How can I build it now? I get this error:

16:18:06 izelnakri ~/Github/nixpkgs -> package-bitbox-bridge nix-build -E 'with import <nixpkgs> { }; callPackage ./pkgs/by-name/bi/bitbox-bridge/package.nix { }'
error:
       … while calling a functor (an attribute set with a '__functor' attribute)
         at /nix/store/s3bhg6p26cqi1hm2lamjjdwaiq49g2hn-source/lib/customisation.nix:264:13:
          263|     in if missingArgs == {}
          264|        then makeOverridable f allArgs
             |             ^
          265|        # This needs to be an abort so it can't be caught with `builtins.tryEval`,

       … while evaluating a branch condition
         at /nix/store/s3bhg6p26cqi1hm2lamjjdwaiq49g2hn-source/lib/customisation.nix:148:7:
          147|     in
          148|       if isAttrs result then
             |       ^
          149|         result // {

       (stack trace truncated; use '--show-trace' to show the full, detailed trace)

       error: expected a set but found a function: «lambda @ /home/izelnakri/Github/nixpkgs/pkgs/by-name/bi/bitbox-bridge/package.nix:10:32»

[JohnRTitor]

You should run nix build .#bitbox-bridge to build this package (if you have enabled flakes), otherwise nix-build -a bitbox-bridge should run fine.

[JohnRTitor]

Otherwise LGTM. Let me know (@) when you have done the changes and I will merge.

[JohnRTitor]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review-gha

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 387888

Logs: https://github.com/JohnRTitor/nixpkgs-review-gha/actions/runs/13952630384

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

x86_64-darwin

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

---

aarch64-darwin

✅ 1 package built:

• bitbox-bridge

[JohnRTitor]

This change ideally should be a in a separate commit.

First commit should be:

maintainers: add izelnakri

Second commit is fine as it is:

bitbox-bridge: init at 1.6.1

[izelnakri]

@JohnRTitor done ;)