snx-rs: 2.2.3 -> 2.9.0

[Shavyn]

This is only a version bump of the snx-rs package as the version in nixpkgs (2.2.3) didn't support a feature added later I needed.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
  • sandbox = relaxed
  • sandbox = true
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
  • and/or package tests
  • or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
  • made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 25.05 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
  • (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[nbraud]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 376344

[nbraud]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 376344

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• snx-rs

[nbraud]

Seems good.

[nbraud]

@Shavyn This package is currently unmaintained (meta.maintainers == []) so it might not be kept up-to-date 😬
Since you are using it, would you volunteer for maintainership?

I'd also suggest setting up automatic updates so @r-ryantm will automatically generate PRs and notify the maintainer(s)

[Adda0]

Before merging, the commit history should be definitely cleaned up: squashing the commits, removing the merged from ... commits, ideally keeping only one commit, which can then have additional information in the commit long description part from the current commits, if you want.

[Adda0]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 376344

---

x86_64-linux

✅ 1 package built:

• snx-rs

Reviewed points

✅ 12 | ❔ 1 | 🔴 1

• Package name fits the guidelines.
• Package version fits the guidelines.
• The commit text fits the guidelines.
• Package maintainers are notified.
  • The continuous integration system will make GitHub notify users based on the submitted changes, but it can happen that it misses some of the package maintainers.
• meta field information fits the guidelines and contain the correct information:
  • License can change with version updates, so it should be checked to match the upstream license.
  • If the package has no maintainer, a maintainer must be set. This can be the update submitter or a community member that accepts to take maintainership of the package.
• The code contains no typos.
• The package builds locally on x86_64-linux.
• All executables run on x86_64-linux.
• All executables tested on x86_64-linux.
• All depending packages build.
• Patches have a comment describing either the upstream URL or a reason why the patch wasn't upstreamed.
• Patches that are remotely available are fetched rather than vendored.

Possible improvements

Comments

The package builds and runs, but I cannot test the functionality of the package.

[Shavyn]

@nbraud thanks for the reply. I'll consider adding the automation and the possibility to maintain the package (my knowledge of Nix is next to zero).
@Adda0 thanks for your contribution. As you can guess I'm a newbie and this is all new to me. I'm learning how to clean up this mess.

[Adda0]

I looked at the upstream repo. They have a changelog file in there. We should add it to the meta attrset like this:

changelog = "https://github.com/ancwrd1/snx-rs/blob/v${version}/CHANGELOG.md";

Could you make the change while you are at it, too?

[Adda0]

@nbraud thanks for the reply. I'll consider adding the automation and the possibility to maintain the package (my knowledge of Nix is next to zero).

Since this project has regular releases on GitHub, adding an update script should be as easy as adding

passthru.updateScript = nix-update-script { };

[Adda0]

It would be good to add an explanation (a comment) here for why the test fails.

Is it something that should be reported upstream?

[Shavyn]

Thanks for all the inputs, as soon as I come back from work I'll have everything (hopefully) sorted.