protobuf3_21: 3.21.2 -> 21.5, update versioning scheme

[jonringer]

Description of changes

Upstream dropped the previous "3" major version, to better help with handling changes to underlying ecosystems. https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/news/2022-05-06

cc @infinisil if this is the correct way to do this version transition

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• For non-Linux: Is sandbox = true set in nix.conf? (See Nix manual)
• 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/)
• 22.11 Release Notes (or backporting 22.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
  • (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
  • (Release notes changes) Ran nixos/doc/manual/md-to-db.sh to update generated release notes
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[Mindavi]

Does this still work like this?

[jonringer]

protobuf 3.21 was the only one using the cmake generic builder. So yes :).

[SuperSandro2000]

IMO we should also try to reduce the number of protobuf variants we have.

[jonringer]

IMO we should also try to reduce the number of protobuf variants we have.

I think the maintenance is pretty minimal. And protobuf is pretty pedantic about which versions you use, so I think we should keep around the non-EOL versions.

[superherointj]

New version, v21.6, is available:
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/tag/v21.6

[Mindavi]

When I try to cross-compile, I get this:

rick@nixos-asus:~/nixpkgs$ nix build .#pkgsCross.aarch64-multiplatform.protobuf_21
error: attribute 'protobuf21_5' missing

       at /nix/store/pycf5k246bmfz21fnl96a2m4yxdl84wy-source/pkgs/development/libraries/protobuf/generic-v3-cmake.nix:65:7:

           64|       # re-use the executable generated as part of the build
           65|       buildPackages."protobuf${protobufVersion}"
             |       ^
           66|     ];
(use '--show-trace' to show detailed location information)

If I add the alias protobuf21_5, it works.

[tjni]

This could fix several errors¹² in #191339 because it picks up protocolbuffers/protobuf#10271.

From my reading of the ticket, it seems that protobufc is built in debug mode but protobuf isn't? I don't know enough about building C++ programs to know for sure.

Footnotes

1. https://malob.github.io/nix-review-tools-reports/nixpkgs:staging-next/nixpkgs_staging-next_1782066.html ↩

2. https://hydra.nixos.org/build/191476697 ↩

[jonringer]

If I add the alias protobuf21_5, it works.

Yea.... cross compilation + overriding :(

[Mindavi]

FYI, it's these lines that cause this to happen:

nixpkgs/pkgs/development/libraries/protobuf/generic-v3-cmake.nix

Lines 59 to 65 in e2420ef

	protobufVersion = "${lib.versions.major version}_${lib.versions.minor version}";
	in [
	cmake
	] ++ lib.optionals (stdenv.hostPlatform != stdenv.buildPlatform) [
	# protoc of the same version must be available for build. For non-cross builds, it's able to
	# re-use the executable generated as part of the build
	buildPackages."protobuf${protobufVersion}"

Maybe still using the minor version in the name would be good? Otherwise those lines should probably be changed to support both.

[jonringer]

Seeing as 3.21/21.x are the only versions of protobuf using the cmake builder, I can just adopt the newer convention.

[vcunat]

Note: 3.21 got security update in the meantime (and became the default version).

[superherointj]

v22.2 is released.
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/releases/tag/v22.2

[sagikazarmark]

Can I help with anything to move this forward?

Also, would it make sense to rename/add a new package called protoc? Given that the new versioning scheme is for protoc only and language runtimes will continue using semver.

[jonringer]

After 6 months, I stopped caring, let's get this in.

[jonringer]

Updated diff, going to merge in 24hrs if no objections. It's been ~6 months

[mweinelt]

Migrate this to hash, please.

[mweinelt]

Is v3 here still correct/relevant?

[jonringer]

we can probably remove it. shouldn't be meaningful anymore.

[jonringer]

much of this was applied