Hello,
Currently nixpkgs' gdal is missing zstd support. It can be fixed by adding zstd to buildInputs of libtiff:

gdal = pkgs.gdal.override {
  libtiff = pkgs.libtiff.overrideAttrs (attrs: {
    buildInputs = (attrs.buildInputs or []) ++ [pkgs.zstd];
  });
};

(tested with gdalinfo, gdal 3.8.5)

Should I create a PR?

In reply to @kidanger:kidanger.net

Hello,
Currently nixpkgs' gdal is missing zstd support. It can be fixed by adding zstd to buildInputs of libtiff:

gdal = pkgs.gdal.override {
  libtiff = pkgs.libtiff.overrideAttrs (attrs: {
    buildInputs = (attrs.buildInputs or []) ++ [pkgs.zstd];
  });
};

(tested with gdalinfo, gdal 3.8.5)

Should I create a PR?

In reply to @kidanger:kidanger.net
done, https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/311922

In reply to @imincik:matrix.org
Ah, great. Can I add it to nixpkgs ?

In reply to @sikmir:matrix.org
Here it is https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/312708, welcome to review)

In reply to @imincik:matrix.org
Trivial to review QGIS version bump - https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/313097

Hi guys, just wondering what you consider an appropriate level of PR review for bot-generated patch releases like libgeotiff: 1.7.1 -> 1.7.2. Some things to consider:

• Anybody doing a review has finite time, and want to do the best possible job in that finite time.
• Somewhere between 11 and 100 packages rely on this one, as detected by ofborg. So the impact of a broken package isn't tiny.
• The package passthru tests are run automatically, but it's hard to gauge at a glance whether those are as complete as they should be, because it's not like we report some kind of coverage front and centre.
• I don't think NixOS tests are typically linked to the package passthru tests, so it's non-trivial to figure out whether any NixOS tests should be run for a particular PR. Do you have any tricks/heuristics for figuring out which tests to run, better than rg libgeotiff nixos/tests (which won't detect tests of packages which depend on libgeotiff)?

Hi guys, just wondering what you consider an appropriate level of PR review for bot-generated patch releases like libgeotiff: 1.7.1 -> 1.7.2. Some things to consider:

• Anybody doing a review has finite time, and want to do the best possible job in that finite time.
• Somewhere between 11 and 100 packages rely on this one, as detected by ofborg. So the impact of a broken package isn't tiny.
• The package passthru tests are run automatically, but it's hard to gauge at a glance whether those are as complete as they should be, because it's not like we report some kind of coverage front and centre.
• I don't think NixOS tests are typically linked to the package passthru tests, so it's non-trivial to figure out whether any NixOS tests should be run for a particular PR. Do you have any tricks/heuristics for figuring out which tests to run, better than rg libgeotiff nixos/tests (which won't detect tests of packages which depend on libgeotiff)?
• If a rubber stamp of "the build passes" is considered sufficient, why don't we automate the merging of such PRs?