poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 #369312

trofi · 2024-12-30T06:28:35Z

Changes:

Things done

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

trofi · 2024-12-30T06:53:38Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`x86_64-linux`

❌ 4 packages failed to build:

collabora-online
craftos-pc
pothos
vscode-extensions.jackmacwindows.craftos-pc

✅ 11 packages built:

ioq3-scion
ioquake3
litebrowser
multipass
mumble
mumble_overlay
murmur
poco
poco.dev
quake3demo
sanjuuni

trofi · 2024-12-30T06:58:08Z

All failures are regressions. Converting to draft.

dwt · 2025-02-15T12:18:40Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`aarch64-darwin`

⏩ 2 packages marked as broken and skipped:

litebrowser
sanjuuni

✅ 2 packages built:

poco
poco.dev

dwt · 2025-02-15T12:19:59Z

This update actually fixes compilation of poco on darwin, as it includes this fix, which previously prevented compilation with clang 19. Since I would like to port mumble and ioquake3 which depend on this, is there something I can do to get this moving forward?

I noticed that there is actually already a 1.14.1 release of poco, maybe updating to that could help?

trofi · 2025-02-15T14:41:56Z

I updated to 1.14.1, but I suspect that the API change did not go away and most dependencies still break with new release. Ran the nixpkgs-review 369312 locally.

dwt · 2025-02-15T14:59:08Z

I tried doing this update and running nixpkgs-review locally, but I never got it to build just poco and its dependencies, could you perhaps share your workflow for running nixpkgs-review locally? Perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

I've tried nixpkgs-review rev HEAD (that built way too much) and nixpkgs-review rev HEAD --package poco (that only built poco, no dependent packages). Is there a different way to test local changes without creating a pr first that focuses better on just the packages changed by a pull request?

dwt · 2025-02-15T15:21:26Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`aarch64-darwin`

⏩ 2 packages marked as broken and skipped:

litebrowser
sanjuuni

✅ 2 packages built:

poco
poco.dev

dwt · 2025-02-15T15:38:01Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`aarch64-linux`

❌ 4 packages failed to build:

collabora-online
craftos-pc
pothos
vscode-extensions.jackmacwindows.craftos-pc

✅ 9 packages built:

ioq3-scion
ioquake3
litebrowser
mumble
murmur
poco
poco.dev
quake3demo
sanjuuni

trofi · 2025-02-15T16:11:46Z

I tried doing this update and running nixpkgs-review locally, but I never got it to build just poco and its dependencies, could you perhaps share your workflow for running nixpkgs-review locally? Perhaps I'm missing something obvious.

I've tried nixpkgs-review rev HEAD (that built way too much) and nixpkgs-review rev HEAD --package poco (that only built poco, no dependent packages). Is there a different way to test local changes without creating a pr first that focuses better on just the packages changed by a pull request?

I just run $ nixpkgs-review pr --no-shell --post-result --build-args '--max-jobs 1' 369312 and wait A Lot (I use a tiny wrapper around it to call it as nr $pr: https://github.com/trofi/home/blob/master/bin/nr).

trofi · 2025-02-15T17:28:46Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`x86_64-linux`

❌ 4 packages failed to build:

collabora-online
craftos-pc
pothos
vscode-extensions.jackmacwindows.craftos-pc

✅ 11 packages built:

ioq3-scion
ioquake3
litebrowser
multipass
mumble
mumble_overlay
murmur
poco
poco.dev
quake3demo
sanjuuni

dwt · 2025-02-15T17:41:57Z

I've looked into the build failures from pothos, and found two problems:

I'ts not using c++17 to build, which fails because poco 1.14 requires it. Enabling that gets the build further, until it fails again because this 5 (!) year old upstream fix does not seem to be part of the release we use

That is kind of a shame, as this concrete error is probably easy to fix, and upstream already has some fixes. However, the upstream project looks quite dormant, so I don't have high hopes for an upstream fix. Even though, I've opened a bug there about the issue

dwt · 2025-02-15T18:19:09Z

I actually did get pothos to compile with this patch:

diff --git a/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/cstring.patch b/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/cstring.patch
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4e8957c3f122
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/cstring.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+Submodule blocks contains modified content
+diff --git a/blocks/file/BinaryFileSink.cpp b/blocks/file/BinaryFileSink.cpp
+index 31c9a41..0083b0d 100644
+--- a/blocks/file/BinaryFileSink.cpp
++++ b/blocks/file/BinaryFileSink.cpp
+@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
+ #endif //_MSC_VER
+ #include <stdio.h>
+ #include <cerrno>
++#include <cstring>
+
+ #ifndef O_BINARY
+ #define O_BINARY 0
+diff --git a/blocks/file/BinaryFileSource.cpp b/blocks/file/BinaryFileSource.cpp
+index 0151231..379d383 100644
+--- a/blocks/file/BinaryFileSource.cpp
++++ b/blocks/file/BinaryFileSource.cpp
+@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
+ #endif //_MSC_VER
+ #include <stdio.h>
+ #include <cerrno>
++#include <cstring>
+
+ #ifndef O_BINARY
+ #define O_BINARY 0
+diff --git a/blocks/file/TextFileSink.cpp b/blocks/file/TextFileSink.cpp
+index b4b2f08..2be66e2 100644
+--- a/blocks/file/TextFileSink.cpp
++++ b/blocks/file/TextFileSink.cpp
+@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
+ #include <complex>
+ #include <fstream>
+ #include <cerrno>
++#include <cstring>
+
+ /***********************************************************************
+  * |PothosDoc Text File Sink
+Submodule soapy contains modified content
+diff --git a/soapy/DemoController.cpp b/soapy/DemoController.cpp
+index 4ce8ead..9a4e742 100644
+--- a/soapy/DemoController.cpp
++++ b/soapy/DemoController.cpp
+@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
+ #include <iostream>
+ #include <chrono>
+ #include <algorithm> //min/max
++#include <cstring>
+
+ /***********************************************************************
+  * |PothosDoc SDR Demo Controller
diff --git a/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/default.nix b/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/default.nix
index 641df521c7fd..0cb55472d342 100644
--- a/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/default.nix
+++ b/pkgs/applications/radio/pothos/default.nix
@@ -41,8 +41,13 @@ mkDerivation rec {
       url = "https://github.com/pothosware/PothosCore/commit/092d1209b0fd0aa8a1733706c994fa95e66fd017.patch";
       hash = "sha256-bZXG8kD4+1LgDV8viZrJ/DMjg8UvW7b5keJQDXurfkA=";
     })
+    # various source files are missing imports of <cstring>
+    ./cstring.patch
   ];
 
+  # poco 1.14 requires c++17
+  NIX_CFLAGS_COMPILE = [ "-std=gnu++17" ];
+
   nativeBuildInputs = [
     cmake
     pkg-config

Caveat: Even though I have a linux builder, I don't (yet) have a linux machine capable of actually testing this package.

@trofi Do you think it viable to include something like that in in this pull request? Do you think fixing the broken packages in this way a viable way forward to get this poco update into nixpkgs?

trofi · 2025-02-15T19:11:49Z

Yeah, that sounds great. If you want you can sent PRs against https://github.com/trofi/nixpkgs/tree/poco-update and I'll apply them to appear in this proposal.

trofi · 2025-02-15T19:12:21Z

Or alternatively I can close this PR so you could create the PR and fix all the fallouts.

dwt · 2025-02-15T19:14:30Z

I'd be happy to send you pull requests against your branch, as I'm still quite new to nixpkgs and would love your guidance.

dwt · 2025-02-15T19:19:34Z

Here you go

dwt · 2025-02-15T19:22:27Z

I just run $ nixpkgs-review pr --no-shell --post-result --build-args '--max-jobs 1' 369312 and wait A Lot (I use a tiny wrapper around it to call it as nr $pr: https://github.com/trofi/home/blob/master/bin/nr).

That means you create the pull request first and only then test using nixpkgs-review? I was hoping for a workflow where I could check before posting the pull request.

trofi · 2025-02-15T20:16:36Z

Here you go

Pulled. Thank you!

dwt · 2025-02-15T21:35:26Z

Investigating the build further, I found that the option

 configureFlags = [
   "--unbundled"
 ];

does not actually have any effect, as cmake is used to build this. It was changed from a cmake flag to a configure flag a while back, to fix the nix build .#pkgsStatic.poco build. That earlier fix seems faulty - not sure it was ever correct. Reverting that, I found that there was actually a dependency missing, and upstream seems to have a bug with static builds. I have provided a workaround as a second pull request to you @trofi.

trofi · 2025-02-16T14:03:16Z

Pulled the PR and slightly reworded the comment

dwt · 2025-02-16T17:12:01Z

Pulled the PR and slightly reworded the comment

Sorry, I did push some additional commits that also fixed the comments. For example, the patch actually disables the internal pcre artifacts for static builds, not all the time. :/ Not quite sure what happened, but those didn't seem to become part of the pull request. I'll create a new one for that.

See trofi#4

dwt · 2025-02-16T19:06:22Z

And another pull request to get craftos-pc compiling with this poco version

dwt · 2025-02-16T20:22:25Z

And the last pull request to fix the build of collabora-online

dwt · 2025-02-16T20:23:19Z

I think this should be it, as far as I can see this fixes all the builds that are failing because of the poco update. Do you see anything else that is missing to make this mergeable?

Changes: - https://github.com/pocoproject/poco/releases/tag/poco-1.14.0-release - https://github.com/pocoproject/poco/releases/tag/poco-1.14.1-release

Upstream seems to have errors, where it doesn't include all the poco headers it requires for it to build. I've provided a patch and [opened a pull request upstream to get it merged](MCJack123/craftos2#391].

This adds some missing includes for collabora online to actually use the poco-json library. Upstream pull request at CollaboraOnline/online#11175

trofi · 2025-02-16T22:05:45Z

And the last pull request to fix the build of collabora-online

Pulled it, rebased, squashed and renamed commits to have consistent $pkg: prefix.

trofi · 2025-02-16T22:40:16Z

`nixpkgs-review` result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 369312

`x86_64-linux`

❌ 6 packages failed to build:

ioq3-scion
ioquake3
multipass
mumble
pothos
quake3demo

✅ 9 packages built:

collabora-online
craftos-pc
litebrowser
mumble_overlay
murmur
poco
poco.dev
sanjuuni
vscode-extensions.jackmacwindows.craftos-pc

dwt · 2025-02-17T07:20:23Z

Ah damn. More work. At least, now I'm getting to the packages I initially wanted to work on. Ah well.

Pull request for Pothos is ready

dwt · 2025-02-17T20:19:12Z

And another one for mumble

As I was not yet able to find good documentation: At what time would I consider using a propagatedBuildInput for something like utf8proc? If all the libraries that use poco need it, should it then become a propagated dependency?

dwt · 2025-02-17T20:25:49Z

Not quite sure what's up with multipass my build fails with an error like this, that seems... odd?

┃ error: builder for '/nix/store/76m5rq1q63h3pm2c4ql1myx673c06zc8-flutter-cache-dir.drv' failed with exit code 1;
┃        last 1 log lines:
┃        > error: executing '/nix/store/ck4s3x3jvml21zpny04xg7fbi8qpxjax-bash-5.2p37/bin/bash': Undefined error: 0
┃        For full logs, run 'nix log /nix/store/76m5rq1q63h3pm2c4ql1myx673c06zc8-flutter-cache-dir.drv'.

@trofi what kind of failures do you get?

trofi · 2025-02-17T21:32:06Z

$ nix build --no-link github:NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/369312/merge#multipass -L
...
multipassd> CMake Error at /nix/store/wjb1rq9xgxzq6n1b7pbrbsk5lrdn9qc7-cmake-3.31.3/share/cmake-3.31/Modules/FindPackageHandleStandardArgs.cmake:233 (message):
multipassd>   Could NOT find Utf8Proc (missing: UTF8PROC_LIBRARY UTF8PROC_INCLUDE_DIR)

trofi · 2025-02-17T22:24:07Z

Let me close this PR. I don't provide much value here. Please reopen a new one with your fixes. I can run build tests against it and provide some basic explanation around build failures.

dwt · 2025-02-18T07:45:18Z

Well, the nix-know-how you provide is (and will be) much appreciated. Since I'm very much new to nix (just started using it a few weeks ago) I very much don't know how to do to many things and wether they are acceptable or right / idiomatic for nix. So hopefully I can count on your know how for those things in that follow-up pull request.

dwt · 2025-02-18T20:02:22Z

For all upstream projects that where linked to this pull request: please see the continuation of this work at #383163

github-actions bot added 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 11-100 labels Dec 30, 2024

trofi marked this pull request as draft December 30, 2024 06:57

ofborg bot requested a review from tomodachi94 December 30, 2024 12:30

trofi force-pushed the poco-update branch from 660e8b5 to 1be02b6 Compare February 15, 2025 14:40

trofi changed the title ~~poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.0~~ poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 Feb 15, 2025

This was referenced Feb 15, 2025

Fixes for the dependencies trofi/nixpkgs#1

Closed

Fix pothos build trofi/nixpkgs#2

Merged

trofi force-pushed the poco-update branch from 0a8827a to 4b5c68c Compare February 15, 2025 20:16

dwt mentioned this pull request Feb 15, 2025

CMake: static build with POCO_UNBUNDLED fails when linking static external pcre2 pocoproject/poco#4871

Closed

trofi force-pushed the poco-update branch from 81a14b2 to 75eabbe Compare February 16, 2025 14:02

dwt mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2025

[nix] build errors with poco 1.14.1 MCJack123/craftos2#391

Open

dwt mentioned this pull request Feb 16, 2025

[nix] build with poco 1.14.1 fails because of missing include CollaboraOnline/online#11175

Closed

trofi and others added 3 commits February 16, 2025 21:03

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1

8222a3c

Changes: - https://github.com/pocoproject/poco/releases/tag/poco-1.14.0-release - https://github.com/pocoproject/poco/releases/tag/poco-1.14.1-release

pothos: fix the build against poco-1.14

5a811fb

craftos-pc: fix the build against poco-1.14

6154184

Upstream seems to have errors, where it doesn't include all the poco headers it requires for it to build. I've provided a patch and [opened a pull request upstream to get it merged](MCJack123/craftos2#391].

trofi force-pushed the poco-update branch from e196d42 to f3e40b6 Compare February 16, 2025 21:03

collabora-online: fix build against poco-1.14

348ce3d

This adds some missing includes for collabora online to actually use the poco-json library. Upstream pull request at CollaboraOnline/online#11175

trofi force-pushed the poco-update branch from f3e40b6 to 348ce3d Compare February 16, 2025 21:05

trofi closed this Feb 17, 2025

dwt mentioned this pull request Feb 18, 2025

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1; fix build with new poco in dependent packages #383163

Open

13 tasks

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 #369312

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 #369312

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025

trofi commented Feb 17, 2025

trofi commented Feb 17, 2025

dwt commented Feb 18, 2025

dwt commented Feb 18, 2025

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 #369312

poco: 1.13.3 -> 1.14.1 #369312

Conversation

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024 • edited Loading

Things done

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024

nixpkgs-review result

x86_64-linux

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

aarch64-darwin

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

aarch64-darwin

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

aarch64-linux

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

x86_64-linux

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 • edited Loading

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 • edited Loading

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 15, 2025

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025 • edited Loading

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

trofi commented Feb 16, 2025

nixpkgs-review result

x86_64-linux

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025 • edited Loading

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025

trofi commented Feb 17, 2025

trofi commented Feb 17, 2025

dwt commented Feb 18, 2025

dwt commented Feb 18, 2025

trofi commented Dec 30, 2024 •

edited

Loading

`nixpkgs-review` result

`x86_64-linux`

`nixpkgs-review` result

`aarch64-darwin`

`nixpkgs-review` result

`aarch64-darwin`

`nixpkgs-review` result

`aarch64-linux`

`nixpkgs-review` result

`x86_64-linux`

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dwt commented Feb 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

dwt commented Feb 16, 2025 •

edited

Loading

`nixpkgs-review` result

`x86_64-linux`

dwt commented Feb 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading