-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.6k
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
atuin: 18.3.0 -> 18.4.0 #368682
atuin: 18.3.0 -> 18.4.0 #368682
Conversation
don't think protoc is needed anymore because of atuinsh/atuin#2122 nixpkgs/pkgs/by-name/at/atuin/package.nix Lines 47 to 50 in c9f456a
(sorry, this is my first time trying to update something here, i made a fork and was trying to figure out how to get macOS' cargoHash but then the bot opened this...not sure if i'm supposed to comment...) |
Looks like the test is also failing. |
Are you yourself on macOS? If so, just replace the hash with an empty string, try to build and get the hash from the resulting error message. If not, I have no idea. That was actually something I was also trying to figure out. |
nahhh, i'm on NixOS...but it appears someone already figured it out in #369322 |
@poopsicles and @nadir-ishiguro in the case of this package there is only one hash for all platforms. Therefore you don't need to generate a macOS specific hash. Doing the trust on first use removing of the hash and building to get the hashes should work for all platforms. |
@adamcstephens are you sure? it's nixpkgs/pkgs/by-name/at/atuin/package.nix Lines 23 to 27 in 4ebcf75
in my fork, the macOS bit is empty, but it builds on my machine because (I assume) it's NixOS afaik, it's because of #308089 and I mean, I'm sure using |
i found this: #224411 which seems to be the first time they separated them in atuin,, maybe @happysalada can confirm? also #224264 (comment) |
Sometimes the cargo hash is different on different platform. It doesnt necessarily persist after dependency updates. |
I updated both hashes and they are sill different, unfortunately. I'm not sure why exactly, that's probably outside of nixpkgs' control. I don't think vendoring the lock file is a desirable solution. |
Automatic update generated by nixpkgs-update tools. This update was made based on information from https://github.com/atuinsh/atuin/releases.
meta.description for atuin is: Replacement for a shell history which records additional commands context with optional encrypted synchronization between machines
meta.homepage for atuin is: https://github.com/atuinsh/atuin
Updates performed
To inspect upstream changes
Release on GitHub
Compare changes on GitHub
Impact
Checks done
Caution
A test defined in
passthru.tests
did not pass.Rebuild report (if merged into master) (click to expand)
Instructions to test this update (click to expand)
Either download from the cache:
(The nixpkgs-update cache is only trusted for this store-path realization.)
For the cached download to work, your user must be in the
trusted-users
list or you can usesudo
since root is effectively trusted.Or, build yourself:
Or:
After you've downloaded or built it, look at the files and if there are any, run the binaries:
Pre-merge build results
We have automatically built all packages that will get rebuilt due to
this change.
This gives evidence on whether the upgrade will break dependent packages.
Note sometimes packages show up as failed to build independent of the
change, simply because they are already broken on the target branch.
nixpkgs-review
resultGenerated using
nixpkgs-review
.Command:
nixpkgs-review
x86_64-linux
✅ 1 package built:
Maintainer pings
cc @SuperSandro2000 @Sciencentistguy @0x4A6F for testing.
Tip
As a maintainer, if your package is located under
pkgs/by-name/*
, you can comment@NixOS/nixpkgs-merge-bot merge
to automatically merge this update using thenixpkgs-merge-bot
.Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.