owi: init at 0.2-unstable-2025-05-05

[ethancedwards8]

Things done

Having trouble getting tests to pass. I may split the Ocaml libraries into a separate PR just to have them merged earlier.

• 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/)
• Nixpkgs 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 Nixpkgs Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
• NixOS 25.11 Release Notes (or backporting 24.11 and 25.05 NixOS Release notes)
  • (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.

[vbgl]

Can you please elaborate what is the issue with the current state (before this PR) of the ocamlPackages.z3 library? Your comment does not match my own observations.

[ethancedwards8]

Can you please elaborate what is the issue with the current state (before this PR) of the ocamlPackages.z3 library? Your comment does not match my own observations.

SMTML would not correctly compile/detect the z3 library in the old way of packaging it.

[vbgl]

I could indeed reproduce the issue with z3. I propose an other (much simpler) fix there: #417157 What do you think?

[ethancedwards8]

This is still a WIP. I will report back here when ready for review.

[ethancedwards8]

@vbgl these tests won't pass until I have packaged a library called frama-c. It is fairly involved and does not build using buildDunePackage. Is it worth packaging just for the tests? As far as I can tell, the package works in its current state.

[vbgl]

Frama-C has been in nixpkgs for ages, under the attribute framac. But it is probably fine not to enable tests for this derivation.

[ethancedwards8]

Yeah, the program. I need the library. Just adding the program only didn't work.

[ethancedwards8]

Anyways, if you think this is ready to go without the tests, I'll mark it as ready to review.