Skip to content

libosmium: add cmakeFlags for CMake >= 3.5#450027

Merged
fabaff merged 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
fabaff:libosmium-fix
Oct 8, 2025
Merged

libosmium: add cmakeFlags for CMake >= 3.5#450027
fabaff merged 1 commit intoNixOS:masterfrom
fabaff:libosmium-fix

Conversation

@fabaff
Copy link
Member

@fabaff fabaff commented Oct 8, 2025

Things done

  • Built on platform:
    • x86_64-linux
    • aarch64-linux
    • x86_64-darwin
    • aarch64-darwin
  • Tested, as applicable:
  • Ran nixpkgs-review on this PR. See nixpkgs-review usage.
  • Tested basic functionality of all binary files, usually in ./result/bin/.
  • Nixpkgs Release Notes
    • Package update: when the change is major or breaking.
  • NixOS Release Notes
    • Module addition: when adding a new NixOS module.
    • Module update: when the change is significant.
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md, pkgs/README.md, maintainers/README.md and other READMEs.

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

@fabaff fabaff mentioned this pull request Oct 8, 2025
Open
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. labels Oct 8, 2025
@fabaff
Copy link
Member Author

fabaff commented Oct 8, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 450027
Commit: 43e289fe8422497a06a636168f7b1e2a1d674fbe

x86_64-linux

✅ 9 packages built:
  • libosmium
  • nominatim
  • nominatim.dist
  • osm2pgsql
  • osmium-tool
  • python312Packages.pyosmium
  • python312Packages.pyosmium.dist
  • python313Packages.pyosmium
  • python313Packages.pyosmium.dist

@fabaff fabaff added this pull request to the merge queue Oct 8, 2025
Merged via the queue into NixOS:master with commit d5be432 Oct 8, 2025
28 checks passed
@fabaff fabaff deleted the libosmium-fix branch October 8, 2025 19:15
@LunNova
Copy link
Member

LunNova commented Oct 8, 2025

Same note as #450028 (comment) , alternative approaches are preferred.

@autra
Copy link
Contributor

autra commented Oct 9, 2025

@fabaff thanks for the fix. Just a remark about the process: from maintainers/README.md:

For most packages, we expect committers to wait at least a week before merging changes not endorsed by a package maintainer (which may be themselves).
This should leave enough time for the maintainers to provide feedback.

Do we have a good reason to bypass this? AFAIK ZHF is still far away.

In addition, to avoid follow-ups to address @LunNova feedback, waiting a bit more would also give time for the geospatial team to actually help, as we track breakage of our packages and fix them.

Thanks for your understanding :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@l0b0 l0b0 Awaiting requested review from l0b0

@sikmir sikmir Awaiting requested review from sikmir

@imincik imincik Awaiting requested review from imincik

@nialov nialov Awaiting requested review from nialov

@nh2 nh2 Awaiting requested review from nh2

@autra autra Awaiting requested review from autra

@das-g das-g Awaiting requested review from das-g

@willcohen willcohen Awaiting requested review from willcohen

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux.

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@fabaff @LunNova @autra