Thanks @midchildan! ( and thanks for being a package maintainer ) Maybe it would make sense to have: - the "released" versions of packages "trafficserver9" and "trafficserver10" in the nix stable branches ( maybe "trafficserver" could default to "trafficserver9" ), - and 10 rc release in unstable? This could have the advantage of leveraging the nix ci/cd pipeline.
To be honest, I'm kinda new to nix, and don't fully understand how the nix package update process works, but when I recently did an MR for ffmpeg to add RIST support, the magical build ci/cd "nixpkgs-review" apparently did report ffmpeg built on >= 4 architectures, and the process also detected that the MR broke ffmpeg on musl. It was fairly impressive. ( https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/353473#issuecomment-2468642936 )... I was also pretty impressed by the maintainers being so careful, cos a lot of packages pull in ffmpeg... On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 4:16 PM midchildan <g...@midchildan.org> wrote: > On 2024/11/12 22:53:57 dave seddon wrote: > > It's a shame the Nix "unstable" package is so far out of date = 9.2.5, > > Unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to packaging the 10.x releases yet. > So in the meantime, Nixpkgs is keeping up with the 9.x release. I'll start > working on it, but it might take some time. > > > otherwise we'd get automated reporting for how trafficserver builds on > > multiple platforms > > Do you mean build reports from hydra.nixos.org? That won't include > prerelease versions of Traffic Server since only the released versions are > currently packaged in Nixpkgs. > > > I don't know if anyone knows the maintainer for the package > > Please feel free to ping me about the package in the GitHub issue tracker. > > https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues > > My GitHub username is midchildan. -- Regards, Dave Seddon +1 415 857 5102
