For this one is okay as rebuilding it is fast. I think I can use MIT but I need to check how I wrote that. We probably want to avoid distributing packages without a license or with a non-redistribu…
I would need to review changes in nosv as well as it affects ovni, so you may add me as well as maintainer.
I would move this to pkgs/maintainers.nix so that m completes to m/ and it doesn't litter the root dir.
I think we can leave this one unmaintained, and maybe set the broken=true flag.
You can use MIT as it was the original license we had in bscpkgs. Also this is likely unmaintaned + broken.
Maybe it would be good to write somewhere what exactly means to be put as the maintainer of a package, because they have different levels of "maintenance status". Some are broken or commented in the overlay.
I think building derivations in intelPackages would be a good thing. But we only want to build the amd driver, not every package in linuxPackages. Not sure if recurseForDerivations could help…
I think for now I would keep the meaning to just: "This package will be added to the bsc.ci.cross target". The precise meaning is whatever we currently have set in bsc.ci.cross, so we could…
Here is a list of packages that cross compile in hydra right now: http://weasel:3001/eval/52?filter=cross&compare=46&full=#tabs-still-succeed ...
Thanks, I think in this PR I only want to…