Turns out if :<something> is passed, a local branch is updated, which
can conflict if the PR branch starts with "pr". I tried to avoid that
with the original code but apparently that didn't work!
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/actions/runs/11284183639/job/31384967152?pr=347822
Fetching the PR commit history
From https://github.com/linj-fork/nixpkgs
* [new branch] pr/kanata-add-version-check -> fork/pr
error: cannot lock ref 'refs/remotes/fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check': 'refs/remotes/fork/pr' exists; cannot create 'refs/remotes/fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check'
! [new branch] pr/kanata-add-version-check -> fork/pr/kanata-add-version-check (unable to update local ref)
error: some local refs could not be updated; try running
This package was added in
<https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/345248> to address
<https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/344689>, a request for a
package of wgpu-native, wgpu’s native WebGPU implementation that
other applications can use as a library.
However, it doesn’t package that at all; instead, it contains
only several binary utility and example programs shipped as part
of wgpu, and in fact, these were already present as the more
appropriately‐named `wgpu-utils` package, which needs only an update.
Given that this package was added without the due diligence to check
whether the software being packaged was what was being requested,
or whether it was already present under an obvious name, I don’t
think there’s an argument for retaining this duplicate. `wgpu-utils`
can be updated and refactored to be on par with this package, and if
the library that was actually requested is ever packaged, it should
be called `wgpu-native` instead.
This reverts commit 27e304c09e.
Several confused users have reported that this
package does not work at all, and per the discussion in
<https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/345905>, the contributor who
added it does not appear to have tested its basic functionality at
all before opening a pull request.
That’s not acceptable; we rely on package maintainers to be able
to assess the basic functionality of software and ensuring that a
program can even start up before opening a pull request to package it
is basic due diligence. It’s harmful to have a package that doesn’t
work and lacks a maintainer who can assess whether it works or not,
so we should remove it until both of those can be addressed.
This reverts commit 5eb022fdb2.
Gaetan Lepage