mpv: 0.37.0 -> 0.38.0 #304349
mpv: 0.37.0 -> 0.38.0 #304349
Conversation
ofborg
bot
added
11.by: package-maintainer
10.rebuild-linux: 11-100
and removed
10.rebuild-linux: 0
labels
|
@AndersonTorres The darwin patch shouldn't be needed anymore. This also means the package requires Edit: It doesn't build on darwin, it looks like this update might require a more recent apple SDK. ( |
|
|
What is happening that this expression is not building? |
If I had to guess it could be related to wrapping mpv? You could try moving it to |
|
Currently mpv uses that dreadful |
|
@ofborg build mpv-unwrapped |
|
No, it does not. Saving my fingers: |
|
Yeah, I just tested and ended up on the same error. |
|
I'm not completely sure why it fails to eval, but you can use the following as a workaround: --- i/pkgs/applications/video/mpv/default.nix
+++ w/pkgs/applications/video/mpv/default.nix
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
ninja,
pkg-config,
python3,
+ sigtool,
ffmpeg,
freefont_ttf,
freetype,
@@ -210,7 +211,7 @@ stdenv'.mkDerivation (finalAttrs: {
pkg-config
]
++ lib.optionals stdenv.isDarwin [
- darwin.sigtool
+ sigtool
xcbuild.xcrun
]
++ lib.optionals swiftSupport [ swift ]
--- i/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix
+++ w/pkgs/top-level/all-packages.nix
@@ -33005,6 +33005,7 @@ with pkgs;
mpv-unwrapped = darwin.apple_sdk_11_0.callPackage ../applications/video/mpv {
stdenv = if stdenv.isDarwin then swiftPackages.stdenv else stdenv;
+ inherit (darwin) sigtool;
inherit lua;
}; or --- c/pkgs/applications/video/mpv/default.nix
+++ i/pkgs/applications/video/mpv/default.nix
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
xcbuild,
rcodesign,
+ buildPackages,
waylandSupport ? stdenv.isLinux,
@@ -210,7 +211,7 @@ stdenv'.mkDerivation (finalAttrs: {
pkg-config
]
++ lib.optionals stdenv.isDarwin [
- darwin.sigtool
+ buildPackages.darwin.sigtool
xcbuild.xcrun
] |
|
Let's try. P.S.: can I put this on the account of splicing? |
|
Patch applied! |
|
@Scrumplex I have patched the expression for sublime at #318319. Can you please test it? |
|
Result of 2 packages failed to build:
107 packages built:
|
|
Seems to build fine now! |
|
shouldn't there be an alias/redirection instead of hitting: |
`wrapMpv` was removed from nixpkgs since this PR: NixOS/nixpkgs#304349 Co-authored-by: Mario Rodas <marsam@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Some note about how to fix breakage resulting from this would have been nice :) I came up with something like: programs.mpv = {
enable = true;
- package = pkgs.wrapMpv (pkgs.mpv-unwrapped.override {
- ffmpeg = pkgs.ffmpeg-full;
- }) {
+ package = (pkgs.mpv-unwrapped.wrapper {
+ mpv = pkgs.mpv-unwrapped.override {
+ ffmpeg = pkgs.ffmpeg-full;
+ };
+ }).override {
scripts = [
pkgs.mpvScripts.mpris |
The interface changed in the new release. Alias would not work P.S.: oh, another case for phagocyte. |
At least a
borgo doesn't test code in files that you didn't touch, unless you tell it to, or there's some package test, etc |
|
there was a test, but it seems like it wasn't set up properly so ofborg could run it: #318588 (comment) seems like there was little/no other usage of wrapMpv in nixpkgs itself, so nixpkgs-review would not have helped either
wouldn't something like this work? (completely untested) wrapMpv = unwrapped: (pkgs.mpv-unwrapped.wrapper { mpv = unwrapped; }).override; |
indeed this code was external, from home-manager. |
`wrapMpv` was removed from nixpkgs since this PR: NixOS/nixpkgs#304349 Co-authored-by: Mario Rodas <marsam@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Hi, why didn’t you add a backwards-compat layer for wrapMpv? Or a deprecation period? |
|
We did not ponder it at that time. Besides, the discussions about, ehr, breakages on unstable are very hot: https://discourse.nixos.org/t/can-we-please-stop-breaking-stuff-willy-nilly/48496 |
|
How is "people are discussing how to handle breakages" an excuse for breaking more things? At least stick with the first reason of "nobody realized," which is at least logical. |
|
I was not saying this as an excuse, in case you did not notice. I merely pointed this Discourse link because we do not have anything remotely similar to a deprecation policy (besides "not breaking stable, tagged NixOS releases"). And that lack of a deprecation policy is a recurrent issue that is receiving a little bit more attention after each iteration:
|
|
I don’t particularly care about people writing books on discourse on this topic (they have been doing that every few months for the last ~decade or so). Just adding a little “hey this was replaced with xy, here’s an easy example how to fix it in your config” |
Description of changes
closes #305164
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.