Conversation
2e24ff3 to
512e01c
Compare
d917218 to
cb54b2f
Compare
pkgs/development/python-modules/django-cache-memoize/default.nix
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkgs/development/python-modules/django-cache-memoize/default.nix
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Why don't you want to add the pre-release to Nixpkgs? |
cb54b2f to
01816b1
Compare
The 1.x version is software actively used and the current 2.x is both alpha and incompatible. I don't want people getting the wrong software and being confused. |
We could call the package |
01816b1 to
f1e6131
Compare
pkgs/development/python-modules/requests-http-message-signatures/default.nix
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
pkgs/development/python-modules/requests-http-message-signatures/default.nix
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
f1e6131 to
dded01d
Compare
|
|
You might need |
dded01d to
b230e0b
Compare
|
For typesense you need my patch from typesense/typesense-python#103. But I also often see but even after adding If I add |
Infinidoge
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall looks good to me! (Though I haven't extensively tested the packages)
One actionable comment, one non-actionable comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For something like this, standard practice would be to use fetch patch instead of vendoring the file
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is why I vendored it:
When adding patches in this manner you should be reasonably sure that the used URL is stable. Patches referencing open pull requests will change when the PR is updated and code forges (such as GitHub) usually garbage collect commits that are no longer reachable due to rebases/amends.
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/README.md#patches
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For this patch in particular, I doubt upstream will be garbage collected, but it's such a small patch vendoring is hardly an issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is no problem here, I just wish to express my displeasure with Darwin
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for your time on this survey.
Your response has been recorded.
44f882c to
e6523f5
Compare
e6523f5 to
fcd67e5
Compare
|
Rebased |
|
|
https://blog.funkwhale.audio/funkwhale-200-release.html woo
Does that mean that it can now be packaged properly? |
Yes. I believe someone is first updating the ngipkgs version to 2.0. See ngi-nix/ngipkgs#1008 (comment). |
These are dependencies needed for Funkwhale 2.0.0-alpha.2. The actual package, module, ect will be in ngipkgs until 2.0.0 is released. The ngipkgs PR is at ngi-nix/ngipkgs#1707.
Progress on #114161.
Things done
nixpkgs-reviewon this PR. See nixpkgs-review usage../result/bin/.Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.