Conversation
|
Can we just do a treewide to remove all |
I can try doing that, if you'd like. |
|
If you feel up to it, it would be great :) |
|
wait -- can this be merged tho -- I looked over the 100 files. |
|
@emilazy Guessing this will have to go to staging.
I was wondering if it had to go to staging with how many are affected now. |
1d484e6 to
0a42baa
Compare
|
The PR's base branch is set to staging, but 20 commits from the master branch are included. Make sure you know the right base branch for your changes, then:
|
|
I guess there’s no PR for the |
Sorry, just waiting for the other merges before ripping them out of here. I suppose I don't have to. But, I was just double checking rebuild count on the packages left. Although, according to @paparodeo I might be able to include some more straight to master. |
|
FWIW the Facebook libraries ( |
Yeah, I didn't think they should rebuild either... just saw a lot of stuff getting flagged in my nixpkgs-review locally and was being cautious. Running it again looks like it was listing them as just affected but not actual needing rebuild. So I think we are good. |
|
Probably Mic92/nixpkgs-review#446. |
| depsTargetTargetPropagated = lib.optionals stdenv.targetPlatform.isDarwin [ | ||
| apple-sdk_11 | ||
| xcbuild | ||
| ]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
BTW, I’m not sure we need xcbuild here any more. xcrun is in the stdenv already and I’d be surprised if many Go packages need xcodebuild itself. cc @zowoq
Things done
Min SDK version was bumped in nixpkgs, unpinning derivations.
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.