Hi Stewart, stewart mackenzie <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Shea Levy <[email protected]> wrote: >> globin missed the fact that the naming convention is messing up the >> lowPrio logic, and your original PR had nothing to do with that. If rust >> were named properly, your fix would be wrong. > > What is the exact naming scheme that rust should adopt? > That is what the other ml thread is about, to decide if indeed it should be changed. If so I can change it, but essentially the -beta/-unstable identifier should come *after* the version number/date, not before. > > I will make a pull request to fix this. > >> Even in this case where >> your fix is harmless (which globin reasonably missed), it doesn't >> actually fix your issue and in the event that the rust naming is fixed >> it would be harmful then. > > Secondly, I want to test this harmful aspect. What is the expected > harmful behaviour if I follow the steps to reproduce i.e.: correctly > name each rust and remove lowprio? Sure, check out this patch: http://sprunge.us/fieF With that applied to nixpkgs, nix-env -f /path/to/nixpkgs -i rustc --dry-run will choose rustc-1.11.0. However, if you remove the "lowPrio" From the definition of rustcUnstable, then it will choose rustc-1.13.0-master-g308824a. It turns out due to the nested nature of rustUnstable and rustBeta in nixpkgs, the lowPrio doesn't matter, as those packages aren't exposed to nix-env by name at all. So I will remove that. ~Shea
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
