freecad: add ifc support

[autra]

Description of changes

This PR adds optional ifc support with ifcopenshell.

It depends on #312381 (fix ifcopenshell build)

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • 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/)
• 24.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.11 and 24.05 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
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

---

Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.

[luzpaz]

Just a heads up

• freecad: 0.21.2 → 1.0rc2 #343592

[autra]

Thanks, we shouldn't step too much into each other shoes hopefully ;-)

[autra]

nixpkgs-review result

Generated using nixpkgs-review.

Command: nixpkgs-review pr 330190

---

x86_64-linux

[autra]

This is now ready. I took the opportunity to document the different options so that they appear in https://search.nixos.org/ (I hope it's the correct way, if it is, I think all packages should just do that).

[AndersonTorres]

I think all packages should just do that

All packages can't do that. Indeed no package can do that.

This "configuration via input parameters" is too unstable and prone to errors.
#324199

Atemu is experimenting with the module system in #312432 to provide a better experience.

[AndersonTorres]

This whole string should be in a README.md file, instead of cluttering the stdout.

[autra]

Thanks for educating me on the problem about the configuration via input parameters. But, to be honest, I don't understand what your suggestion is. How should I implement optional ifcopenshell support? Is my code ok or is there a better way to do it?

I think all packages should just do that

All packages can't do that. Indeed no package can do that.

Here I'm speaking specifically about documenting in longDescription so that it appears in search.nixos.org (I feel like we are mixing this with the ifcSupport option maybe?). Are you saying that there is no way to document the different options of a package there and that people do need to check the source code to learn about the customization possibilities?

[AndersonTorres]

so that it appears in search.nixos.org

It looks like a deviation of purpose of longDescription.

This field describes the software, not the input parameters of the build script.
Further, it is not "a field to be shown in search.nixos.org engine".

Further, the discoverability of Nixpkgs is very problematic, and such workaround is far from helpful.

[autra]

I feel like we are mixing two orthogonal topics here : the issue you linked is about nixos options installing packages under the hood. Here I'm talking about package options that changes the derivation itself. These options are available for nix/nixpkgs itself, not only for nixos. Both are kinda related yes, but not entirely.

I agree longDescription was probably not meant for that, but in my opinion it's still better than nothing. I'd argue to keep this commit , but as you are set on removing this, I'll amend it and put this in a README.

[autra]

@AndersonTorres I added a README. For the option, I see no alternative right now :-)