rpcs3: 0.0.12 -> 0.0.16

[vs49688]

Motivation for this change

Updating

Things done

• Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS linux)
• Built on platform(s)
  • NixOS
  • macOS
  • other Linux distributions
• Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review wip"
• Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
• Ensured that relevant documentation is up to date
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[r-rmcgibbo]

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 122140 at 65f95573 run on x86_64-linux 1

1 package built successfully:

• rpcs3

1 suggestion:

• warning: unclear-gpl

  gpl2 is a deprecated license, please check if project uses gpl2Plus or gpl2Only and change meta.license accordingly.

  Near pkgs/misc/emulators/rpcs3/default.nix:51:5:

     |
  51 |     license = licenses.gpl2;
     |     ^
  

[ilian]

I wasn't able to derive the GPL license type of RPCS3 so I added an upstream issue for the authors to clarify: RPCS3/rpcs3#10255

[vs49688]

I just grepped for "any later version", which most of the files seemed to have, hence gpl2Plus.

[ilian]

I just grepped for "any later version", which most of the files seemed to have, hence gpl2Plus.

The only files that matched that pattern are external libraries (e.g. those listed under /Crypto) instead of the source files of the authors.

[vs49688]

Fair enough, I only changed it because of:

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 122140 at 65f9557 run on x86_64-linux 1
1 package built successfully:
1 suggestion:

I can force-push a new one without the license change for now, if that'd be better.

[ilian]

Fair enough, I only changed it because of:

Result of nixpkgs-review pr 122140 at 65f9557 run on x86_64-linux 1
1 package built successfully:
1 suggestion:

I can force-push a new one without the license change for now, if that'd be better.

Sounds good! We can change the license as soon as the linked upstream issue is resolved.

By the way, since we are fetching the source from GitHub, I suggest that we use fetchFromGitHub to fetch the source files:

  src = fetchFromGitHub {
    owner = "RPCS3";
    repo = "rpcs3";
    rev = "v${majorVersion}";
    fetchSubmodules = true;
    sha256 = "qceUt3TnzqpK+Ur5DrQ1/g97RJGdynISAcuVJ0KD1Nk=";
  };

[vs49688]

Done, however I realised that I didn't update the hash so it was still building the older one. It's building on my machine now, but it's not particularly fast...

EDIT: It builds fine. Qt doesn't like dark themes though:

[vs49688]

By the way, there's been a response on the license: RPCS3/rpcs3#10255 (comment)
Seems the project as a whole is gpl2Only, so should we go with that?

Also this RPCS3/rpcs3#10255 (comment) concerns me... Should I switch to master (RPCS3/rpcs3@31b55e0 at time of writing) or stay with the tag?

[ilian]

By the way, there's been a response on the license: RPCS3/rpcs3#10255 (comment)
Seems the project as a whole is gpl2Only, so should we go with that?

Sounds good!

Also this RPCS3/rpcs3#10255 (comment) concerns me... Should I switch to master (RPCS3/rpcs3@31b55e0 at time of writing) or stay with the tag?

Yes, we should probably switch to master.

[vs49688]

I've just de-vendor'd zlib, libusb, and llvm. If that's enough, I'll squash and force-push.

[vs49688]

Ping? I would really like this to be 21.05