edopro: init #342365

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-16T18:18:44Z

Description of changes

Things done

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

TODO

card assets
sound
controller support
core (statically) linked for runtime use
update script
optional: card asset discussion (edo9300 gives permission to us)
optional: font discussion (unneeded for now)
optional: cross platform discussion (no macs to test on)
optional: windbot support (I believe it works)

@TLATER

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-16T18:19:38Z

I should note that @TLATER wrote the init for this package and I just carried it to the finish line.

TLATER

As discussed elsewhere, I've previously tried getting a package together for this, but this is one of those applications that don't play particularly nicely with NixOS. The game assets are deliberately mutable, and the concept of "version" is muddy.

Upstream also very strongly suggested that third party builds will just cause headaches and that we should instead suggest using nix-ld with their published binaries, which works just fine. My build primarily exists because I wanted to make some downstream changes.

I think we may want to just wrap that binary in an fhs env with a little script to start it in a appropriate xdg base dir.

TLATER · 2024-09-17T16:07:51Z

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

+
+ if [ ! -d $EDOPRO_DIR ]; then
+ mkdir -p $EDOPRO_DIR
+ cp -r ${assets.src}/{${assetsToCopy}} $EDOPRO_DIR


This isn't quite ready for general use, ideally this should have some logic that prevents overwriting user edits but recovers the directory if it's broken. Also applying updates would be difficult with the current script, and will probably become important eventually.

You wrote this code, I've made no changes

Yeah, which is why I point it out as a remaining problem ;p

I'll see if I can think of a better way to do this sometime this week, don't have that much disposable evening time currently, though.

I asked edopro about this and he confirmed the files we need to never override if they exist they are.

config/user_configs.json

deck

pics

replay

Everything else we can nuke on an update.

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-17T16:46:44Z

In other news I got sound working!

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-17T16:58:40Z

As discussed elsewhere, I've previously tried getting a package together for this, but this is one of those applications that don't play particularly nicely with NixOS. The game assets are deliberately mutable, and the concept of "version" is muddy.

Upstream also very strongly suggested that third party builds will just cause headaches and that we should instead suggest using nix-ld with their published binaries, which works just fine. My build primarily exists because I wanted to make some downstream changes.

We can add some more checks but at the end of the day these fights always happen. Most commonly you'll see them in fast moving projects like emulators, by having this project be in by-name will help fix this issue because any actual code updates could be pulled into nixos unstable as fast as a week with the new auto update and auto merge bots that are working on nixpkgs. You forget the downside of using nixld is we lose all ability to actually debug this project if something goes wrong. For example when I was trying to figure out the card asset urls, no where in any doc or build file does it say the it needs the link followed by a formatter like {}.jpg. You would need to use the strings command on the binary to figure that part out.

We can also add the update url if that helps, I believed the update url meant a "update is available, download here" which would just confuse most users. But if handles that and card assets for example we could add it back.

I believe it's important to remember context here, edopro has open pr's from almost 5 years ago that have gone stale, in contrast nixos's autoupdate pr merger will be able to run laps around the speed required to keep this app up to date without any problems on their dev team. In the worse possible case all a user would have to do is run nix-build -A edopro after updating the hashes to build the newest version from git to debug, not have to install all the sdk's and runtimes manually. Packaging would help us, the users of nixos.

TLATER · 2024-09-17T22:18:39Z

The issues we'll run into are dependency compatibility, precisely because edopro updates slowly. This is building directly from the master branch, which is not an actual released version; the released version is incompatible with current gcc, for example, and we may well run into version incompatibility with the official servers in the future.

winterqt · 2024-09-17T22:22:12Z

Marking as draft due to eval failures; please feel free to undraft once these have been fixed.

TLATER

At a computer now; I point out a couple more polish things.

Final discussion point:

optional: windbot support

Would be nice indeed, but probably a nightmare to build as well: https://github.com/IceYGO/windbot

We could bundle what comes with the edopro asset release, but that one has actual dependencies, unlike libocgcore, so you'd need an fhs env/nix-ld at that point.

Probably something to mark down as future work.

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

TLATER · 2024-09-17T22:10:41Z

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

+
+ if [ ! -d $EDOPRO_DIR ]; then
+ mkdir -p $EDOPRO_DIR
+ cp -r ${assets.src}/{${assetsToCopy}} $EDOPRO_DIR


I'll see if I can think of a better way to do this sometime this week, don't have that much disposable evening time currently, though.

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-18T01:48:16Z

Marking as draft due to eval failures; please feel free to undraft once these have been fixed.

what? who failed to eval, it works on my system and is there a log?

winterqt · 2024-09-18T01:49:51Z

what? who failed to eval, it works on my system and is there a log?

OfBorg, our CI, did. See the X under "ofborg-eval".

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-18T01:52:33Z

The issues we'll run into are dependency compatibility, precisely because edopro updates slowly. This is building directly from the master branch, which is not an actual released version; the released version is incompatible with current gcc, for example, and we may well run into version incompatibility with the official servers in the future.

Wrong! this is building from the tagged releases! :)

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-18T01:53:43Z

what? who failed to eval, it works on my system and is there a log?

OfBorg, our CI, did. See the X under "ofborg-eval".

what is restricted mode and why can't it download from github?

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-18T16:56:41Z

note we have to use fmt 9 until we get to this commit

1108eab5e7b3b3bda2a8d6a42e5f25ae4d3292fa

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-18T19:11:28Z

I got windbot working!

Redhawk18 · 2024-09-30T02:09:42Z

@TLATER I got the main body of the update script done, it's not finished but I can't find a way to set the the hashs required for nix. Since somehow we need to invoke nix's eval, but I'm unsure how.

Redhawk18 · 2024-10-10T18:20:22Z

@TLATER hey man, just checking on you. We might just come back to the update script later, it's almost done I just need to figure out the hashes.

nixos-discourse · 2024-10-16T23:00:26Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/how-to-get-the-proper-hashes-from-a-github-repo-and-commit/54460/1

nixos-discourse · 2024-10-17T21:39:24Z

This pull request has been mentioned on NixOS Discourse. There might be relevant details there:

https://discourse.nixos.org/t/prs-ready-for-review/3032/4702

Redhawk18 · 2024-10-17T21:39:50Z

@TLATER It's ready for review if you have time.

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

fmt sound suggestions 1 license update add support for windbot escape string xdg directory with a fallback of $HOME add update script and new deps file finished update script format deps file remove testing logic remove tlater, because he is not in the maintainer list and didn't response to me Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Update pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> change hash format Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> Apply suggestions from code review Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]> add patchfile and multiarch function

Redhawk18 · 2024-10-21T17:37:19Z

@OPNA2608 Hm, not sure why vet is failing now. All I added was your suggestion code and patchfile

OPNA2608 · 2024-10-21T17:38:23Z

#350289 (comment)

Redhawk18 · 2024-10-21T17:53:17Z

#350289 (comment)

now thats epic, and please approve

OPNA2608 · 2024-10-21T23:06:15Z

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

+
+ irrlicht-edopro = stdenv.mkDerivation {
+ pname = "irrlicht-edopro";
+ version = "1.9-custom";


1.9-custom doesn't really identify a version in any way that suits the version attribute. Would it be possible to have this be generated in our unstable version format 0-unstable-<YYYY>-<MM>-<DD> as part of your update script?

if you look at the project 1.9.0 is the version in the project.

1.9.0 doesn't name a specific rev either. The version is inherited from upstream Irrlicht, where it's been used as the "upcoming next minor release" for years.

Like is stated in the update script, irrlicht has no update structure. It's released as a rolling release, which is why I try to exit the update script before updating hashes.

OPNA2608 · 2024-10-21T23:16:02Z

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

+
+ ocgcore = stdenv.mkDerivation rec {
+ pname = "ygopro-core";
+ version = deps.ocgcore-rev;


Similar note here, except that this follows our version guideline even less than irrlicht-edopro - "4a872ad7686e0d00ee4c1c051e90fc07c40613d4".

Currently this points at edo9300/ygopro-core@4a872ad, which would be 9.1-unstable-2022-09-15. There was a release 2 days after that commit which would make it a clean 10.0, but dunno if they didn't bump to that on purpose (maybe worth a ping upstream?).

This is a git module so the context of versions doesn't really make sense here. Even if I update the script to fetch the commit and see if it has a related tag its not always going to resolve correctly.

I pinged him anyways

How on earth do you want my script to get the version this core is from?

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix

Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]>

TLATER reviewed Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from e5652ca to 3c95502 Compare September 17, 2024 18:00

winterqt marked this pull request as draft September 17, 2024 22:21

TLATER reviewed Sep 17, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

winterqt requested changes Sep 18, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 3c95502 to 93d2862 Compare September 18, 2024 03:10

Redhawk18 requested a review from winterqt September 18, 2024 03:10

Redhawk18 marked this pull request as ready for review September 18, 2024 03:12

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 93d2862 to a83bad3 Compare September 18, 2024 03:29

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch 2 times, most recently from 7285774 to 7bcabcb Compare September 18, 2024 19:09

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 7bcabcb to 2599d2a Compare September 30, 2024 02:08

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch 3 times, most recently from 42055fe to 3afc49b Compare October 17, 2024 21:34

OPNA2608 reviewed Oct 19, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 3afc49b to ec03ef3 Compare October 19, 2024 17:16

Redhawk18 requested a review from OPNA2608 October 19, 2024 17:17

ofborg bot added 8.has: package (new) 11.by: package-maintainer 10.rebuild-darwin: 0 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1 labels Oct 19, 2024

Redhawk18 mentioned this pull request Oct 19, 2024

Ryujinx has been removed. Need to decide next steps. #345758

Open

OPNA2608 requested changes Oct 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch 2 times, most recently from 1b9d960 to 79b84a1 Compare October 20, 2024 16:24

Redhawk18 requested a review from OPNA2608 October 20, 2024 17:05

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 79b84a1 to 16cd0e4 Compare October 20, 2024 18:28

OPNA2608 reviewed Oct 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkgs/by-name/ed/edopro/package.nix Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 4abf674 to bf2c280 Compare October 20, 2024 18:59

Redhawk18 requested a review from OPNA2608 October 20, 2024 19:17

OPNA2608 requested changes Oct 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 438674e to 8448bf4 Compare October 21, 2024 17:27

Redhawk18 force-pushed the 3dopolololo branch from 8448bf4 to 5439c14 Compare October 21, 2024 17:34

Redhawk18 requested a review from OPNA2608 October 21, 2024 17:53

OPNA2608 requested changes Oct 21, 2024

View reviewed changes

Apply suggestions from code review

8bd0bc1

Co-authored-by: Cosima Neidahl <[email protected]>

ofborg bot requested a review from OPNA2608 October 22, 2024 07:28

edopro: init #342365

Are you sure you want to change the base?

edopro: init #342365

Conversation

Redhawk18 commented Sep 16, 2024 • edited Loading

Description of changes

Things done

TODO

Redhawk18 commented Sep 16, 2024

TLATER left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Redhawk18 Sep 18, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Redhawk18 commented Sep 17, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 17, 2024 • edited Loading

TLATER commented Sep 17, 2024

winterqt commented Sep 17, 2024

TLATER left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Redhawk18 commented Sep 18, 2024

winterqt commented Sep 18, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 18, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 18, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 18, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 18, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Sep 30, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Oct 10, 2024

nixos-discourse commented Oct 16, 2024

nixos-discourse commented Oct 17, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Oct 17, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Oct 21, 2024

OPNA2608 commented Oct 21, 2024

Redhawk18 commented Oct 21, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Redhawk18 commented Sep 16, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Redhawk18 Sep 18, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Redhawk18 commented Sep 17, 2024 •

edited

Loading

Redhawk18 commented Oct 21, 2024 •

edited

Loading