Skip to content

lixPackageSets.lix_2_90: drop#439941

Merged
lf- merged 1 commit into
NixOS:masterfrom
LunNova:lunnova/drop-lix-2.90
Sep 4, 2025
Merged

lixPackageSets.lix_2_90: drop#439941
lf- merged 1 commit into
NixOS:masterfrom
LunNova:lunnova/drop-lix-2.90

Conversation

@LunNova

@LunNova LunNova commented Sep 3, 2025

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

lix_2_90 has been marked insecure since 2025-06-24 due to two CVEs.

It now fails to build with error: 'lowdown_opts' has no non-static data member named 'cols'

I don't see any need to keep a broken insecure version of lix around. If there is a need the build should be fixed, and this can be closed.

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.

lix_2_90 has been marked insecure since 2025-06-24 due to two CVEs.

It fails to build with error: 'lowdown_opts' has no non-static data member named 'cols'
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci Bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux. labels Sep 3, 2025
@nix-owners nix-owners Bot requested review from 9999years, Qyriad, alois31 and lf- September 3, 2025 19:03

@lf- lf- left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

yup. there is likely even more junk that can be removed from the common code that's conditional on version btw.

but i don't think we're gonna fix the build of 2.90 so this change seems reasonable to me.

@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci Bot added 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one person. 12.approved-by: package-maintainer This PR was reviewed and approved by a maintainer listed in any of the changed packages. labels Sep 3, 2025

@alois31 alois31 left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We already have #426260 that also drops 2.91. However the 2.91 removal is more controversial so splitting seems fine. I think #426260 (comment) can also apply to the junk Jade mentioned so this is fine as is.

@lf- lf- merged commit 8d32f01 into NixOS:master Sep 4, 2025
34 of 37 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

10.rebuild-darwin: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 0 This PR does not cause any packages to rebuild on Linux. 12.approvals: 1 This PR was reviewed and approved by one person. 12.approved-by: package-maintainer This PR was reviewed and approved by a maintainer listed in any of the changed packages.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants