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

atuin: 18.3.0 -> 18.4.0 #368682

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

r-ryantm
Copy link
Contributor

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
  • Rust version update
To inspect upstream changes
Impact

Checks done


  • built on NixOS

Caution

A test defined in passthru.tests did not pass.

  • found 18.4.0 with grep in /nix/store/dk65xd1asmq6sx31d303p31xd33rrcvw-atuin-18.4.0
  • found 18.4.0 in filename of file in /nix/store/dk65xd1asmq6sx31d303p31xd33rrcvw-atuin-18.4.0

Rebuild report (if merged into master) (click to expand)
2 total rebuild path(s)

2 package rebuild(s)

First fifty rebuilds by attrpath

atuin
Instructions to test this update (click to expand)

Either download from the cache:

nix-store -r /nix/store/dk65xd1asmq6sx31d303p31xd33rrcvw-atuin-18.4.0 \
  --option binary-caches 'https://cache.nixos.org/ https://nixpkgs-update-cache.nix-community.org/' \
  --option trusted-public-keys '
  nixpkgs-update-cache.nix-community.org-1:U8d6wiQecHUPJFSqHN9GSSmNkmdiFW7GW7WNAnHW0SM=
  cache.nixos.org-1:6NCHdD59X431o0gWypbMrAURkbJ16ZPMQFGspcDShjY=
  '

(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 use sudo since root is effectively trusted.

Or, build yourself:

nix-build -A atuin https://github.com/r-ryantm/nixpkgs/archive/ee59f12ce23fff9fb10357ffca27caf79a42e626.tar.gz

Or:

nix build github:r-ryantm/nixpkgs/ee59f12ce23fff9fb10357ffca27caf79a42e626#atuin

After you've downloaded or built it, look at the files and if there are any, run the binaries:

ls -la /nix/store/dk65xd1asmq6sx31d303p31xd33rrcvw-atuin-18.4.0
ls -la /nix/store/dk65xd1asmq6sx31d303p31xd33rrcvw-atuin-18.4.0/bin


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 result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review


x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:
  • atuin

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 the nixpkgs-merge-bot.


Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@poopsicles
Copy link
Contributor

don't think protoc is needed anymore because of atuinsh/atuin#2122

preBuild = ''
export PROTOC=${buildPackages.protobuf}/bin/protoc
export PROTOC_INCLUDE="${buildPackages.protobuf}/include";
'';

(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...)

@adamcstephens
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like the test is also failing.

@nadir-ishiguro
Copy link
Contributor

don't think protoc is needed anymore because of atuinsh/atuin#2122

preBuild = ''
export PROTOC=${buildPackages.protobuf}/bin/protoc
export PROTOC_INCLUDE="${buildPackages.protobuf}/include";
'';

(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...)

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.

@r-vdp r-vdp mentioned this pull request Dec 30, 2024
13 tasks
@poopsicles
Copy link
Contributor

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.

nahhh, i'm on NixOS...but it appears someone already figured it out in #369322

@adamcstephens
Copy link
Contributor

@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.

@poopsicles
Copy link
Contributor

@adamcstephens are you sure? it's cargoHash specifically I'm talking about, not the fetchFromGitHub one

cargoHash =
if stdenv.hostPlatform.isLinux then
"sha256-JDm7HWMaLSodpOhrR7rm6ZS/ATX/q8fRK+OJ/EKqg3U="
else
"sha256-mrsqaqJHMyNi3yFDIyAXFBS+LY71VWXE8O7mjvgI6lo=";

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 cargoLock instead would mitigate that, but it's 134KB and #327064 is an issue

@poopsicles
Copy link
Contributor

i found this: #224411 which seems to be the first time they separated them in atuin,, maybe @happysalada can confirm?

also #224264 (comment)

@happysalada
Copy link
Contributor

Sometimes the cargo hash is different on different platform. It doesnt necessarily persist after dependency updates.
Ill try to build atuin on latest master and will make a PR if it fails with a hash mismatch

@r-ryantm r-ryantm deleted the auto-update/atuin branch December 31, 2024 00:23
@r-vdp
Copy link
Contributor

r-vdp commented Jan 1, 2025

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.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants