New package: zed-0.231.2

[JudahJL]

Testing the changes

• I tested the changes in this PR: YES

New package

• This new package conforms to the package requirements: YES

Local build testing

• I built this PR locally for my native architecture, (x86_64-glibc)
• I built this PR locally for these architectures (crossbuilds):
  • aarch64-glibc

[Nizarjh]

dupllicate #58659

[JudahJL]

@Nizarjh I apologize for the duplicate pr.
didnt notice another pending pr.
I just wanted to add zed to the main repo as quickly as possible to use it asap.
Note: This one doesnt build the remote_server for now(commented it out). will do it at next update or if asked to do in review

[Nizarjh]

@Nizarjh I apologize for the duplicate pr. didnt notice another pending pr. I just wanted to add zed to the main repo as quickly as possible to use it asap. Note: This one doesnt build the remote_server for now(commented it out). will do it at next update or if asked to do in review

u can use my template and patches for your own)

[Nizarjh]

u need also change binary name from zed to smth with patch. u can look how i made this in my pr. But my pacth is not actual to new version. so do your own for this version of zed

[JudahJL]

u need also change binary name from zed to smth with patch. u can look how i made this in my pr. But my pacth is not actual to new version. so do your own for this version of zed

@Nizarjh I don't need to use that patch. I'm renaming the executable at do_install stage. There's also an additional check in the check build CI/CD that ensures no name conflicts occur in the executables(which successfully passes)

[Nizarjh]

u need also change binary name from zed to smth with patch. u can look how i made this in my pr. But my pacth is not actual to new version. so do your own for this version of zed

@Nizarjh I don't need to use that patch. I'm renaming the executable at do_install stage. There's also an additional check in the check build CI/CD that ensures no name conflicts occur in the executables(which successfully passes)

oh i see. Sorry :)

[Duncaen]

Suggested change

	archs="x86_64 aarch64"
	archs="x86_64* aarch64*"

[JudahJL]

Didn't compile successfully on musl versions locally

[Duncaen]

Then that is a merge blocker, there is no reason it shouldn't work with musl.

[JudahJL]

Because of dependencies not existing in one of the musl version. For details, I'll let you know when I get home

[JudahJL]

x86_64-linux-musl:

ERROR: Could not find package 'cross-x86_64-linux-musl'
=> ERROR: cross-x86_64-linux-musl-0.37_5: cannot be built, it's currently broken; see the build log:
=> ERROR: cross-x86_64-linux-musl-0.37_5: Can't build crosstoolchain to itself

aarch64-musl:

error: failed to run custom build command for `prost-build v0.9.0`
        
Caused by:
process didn't exit successfully: `/builddir/zed-0.231.1/target/release/build/prost-build-b23121bcf79afb3f/build-script-build` (exit status: 101)
--- stderr
        
thread 'main' (12773) panicked at /host/cargo/registry/src/index.crates.io-1949cf8c6b5b557f/prost-build-0.9.0/build.rs:105:10:
Failed to find the protoc binary. The PROTOC environment variable is not set, there is no bundled protoc for this platform, and protoc is not in the PATH
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace

[Nizarjh]

try -A

[JudahJL]

im sorry for closing and opening the pr. renaming the branch messed it up