Skip to content

Conversation

felbinger
Copy link
Member

Hey @shard77. I was thinking: Maybe we should render the files directly into HTML using MkDocs.
That way, they can be served directly by a web server, or accessed locally using something like python2.7 -m SimpleHttpServer, python3 -m http.server, php -S localhost:8080, or any other local webserver.

Also I updated to the latest version (4.2 aka. 2025.1)

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.

@felbinger felbinger requested a review from shard77 August 4, 2025 19:18
@felbinger felbinger force-pushed the improve-payloadsallthethings branch 2 times, most recently from 5e322da to a3751d8 Compare August 4, 2025 19:22
@nixpkgs-ci nixpkgs-ci bot added 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1 This PR causes 1 package to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 1 This PR causes 1 package to rebuild on Linux. labels Aug 4, 2025
Copy link
Member

@shard77 shard77 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @felbinger , thanks for the update/changes, good idea!
Everything LGTM! Builds as expected.
One minor trade-off I see is that users won't be able to choose a different theme for building the docs unless they explicitly override the package. That said, I do think that the practical benefits outweigh the tradeoffs here.

@felbinger
Copy link
Member Author

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review-gha

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 431002

Logs: https://github.com/felbinger/nixpkgs-review-gha/actions/runs/16732195657


x86_64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:
  • payloadsallthethings

aarch64-darwin (sandbox = true)

✅ 1 package built:
  • payloadsallthethings

@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 Aug 4, 2025
@shard77
Copy link
Member

shard77 commented Aug 4, 2025

@felbinger Another note: seems like the releases on the github are now more consistent, the original reason I have used the latest commit hash instead of versioning was because the latest edition dated from several years.. Actually, I'm just wondering if we should keep building with the latest commit? I only see upsides by doing so tbh. I'm not sure if they will be consistent enough with releases in the future. What do you think?

@felbinger
Copy link
Member Author

@felbinger Another note: seems like the releases on the github are now more consistent, the original reason I have used the latest commit hash instead of versioning was because the latest edition dated from several years.. Actually, I'm just wondering if we should keep building with the latest commit? I only see upsides by doing so tbh. I'm not sure if they will be consistent enough with releases in the future. What do you think?

The advantage of using a tag would be automatic update by the bot, right? I'm not quiet sure if this would work with the latest hash too...

@felbinger
Copy link
Member Author

I just had another idea: how about this, to allow the user to choose from just the markdown sources (out) of the rendered html files (doc)?

@shard77
Copy link
Member

shard77 commented Aug 4, 2025

@felbinger Another note: seems like the releases on the github are now more consistent, the original reason I have used the latest commit hash instead of versioning was because the latest edition dated from several years.. Actually, I'm just wondering if we should keep building with the latest commit? I only see upsides by doing so tbh. I'm not sure if they will be consistent enough with releases in the future. What do you think?

The advantage of using a tag would be automatic update by the bot, right? I'm not quiet sure if this would work with the latest hash too...

You're right.. Let's keep the tag then 👍

@shard77
Copy link
Member

shard77 commented Aug 4, 2025

I just had another idea: how about this, to allow the user to choose from just the markdown sources (out) of the rendered html files (doc)?

Yes that's perfect!

@felbinger
Copy link
Member Author

I just had another idea: how about this, to allow the user to choose from just the markdown sources (out) of the rendered html files (doc)?

Yes that's perfect!

I just asked someone with more experience, if it's okay to use this output for it, if yes I will squash the commits.

stdenvNoCC.mkDerivation {
pname = "payloadsallthethings";
version = "3.0-unstable-2024-01-21";
version = "2025.1";
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why do we have two version numbers?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

don't know. I think 2025.1 is the better fit, we need the 4.2 for the tag
image

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No idea, we'll leave it like this until someone has a better idea 😅

@felbinger felbinger force-pushed the improve-payloadsallthethings branch from 63ff1ff to 69cc690 Compare August 5, 2025 14:47
@felbinger felbinger force-pushed the improve-payloadsallthethings branch from 69cc690 to dfa3804 Compare August 5, 2025 14:50
@SuperSandro2000 SuperSandro2000 merged commit 1d4ff8b into NixOS:master Aug 6, 2025
22 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-darwin: 1 This PR causes 1 package to rebuild on Darwin. 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 This PR causes between 1 and 10 packages to rebuild on Linux. 10.rebuild-linux: 1 This PR causes 1 package 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