nixpkgs
nixpkgs copied to clipboard
masterpdfeditor: 5.9.86 -> 5.9.89
close #385737
Things done
- Built on platform(s)
- [x] x86_64-linux
- [ ] aarch64-linux
- [ ] x86_64-darwin
- [ ] aarch64-darwin
- For non-Linux: Is sandboxing enabled in
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)- [ ]
sandbox = relaxed - [ ]
sandbox = true
- [ ]
- [ ] Tested, as applicable:
- NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
- and/or package tests
- or, for functions and "core" functionality, tests in lib/tests or pkgs/test
- made sure NixOS tests are linked to the relevant packages
- [ ] Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using
nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage - [ ] Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in
./result/bin/) - Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
- [ ] (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
- NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
- [ ] (Module updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is significant
- [ ] (Module addition) Added a release notes entry if adding a new NixOS module
- [x] Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.
Add a :+1: reaction to pull requests you find important.
If you want me to review, you'll need to follow the contribution guidelines and:
- split your change into separate commits as logical units
- write actual commit messages, explaining your changes.
This is the minimum. In general, it would really help to think about the reviewer when putting up a PR. I don't have the mental bandwidth to review a throw-everything-into-a-single-commit-no-explanation-given PR.