sysutils/nix: Update to 2.3.10

[nc]

Summary

sysutils/nix: Update to 2.3.10

Test Plan

Passes poudriere on amd64 and i386.

[nc]

Since you (@0mp) are both the maintainer of this sysutils/nix and my mentor, I'm thinking about a commit message like:

sysutils/nix: Update to 2.3.10

PR:                    251897
Reviewed by:           0mp (mentor)
Approved by:           0mp (mentor, maintainer)

is this okay? Should the "Reviewed By" line say "0mp (mentor, maintainer)"?

[0mp]

Thanks for the patch.

BTW, if there is a Bugzilla PR associated with the patch, it's a good idea to link to that PR in the description.

In D27996#625236, @nc wrote:

Since you (@0mp) are both the maintainer of this sysutils/nix and my mentor, I'm thinking about a commit message like:

sysutils/nix: Update to 2.3.10

PR:                    251897
Reviewed by:           0mp (mentor)
Approved by:           0mp (mentor, maintainer)

is this okay? Should the "Reviewed By" line say "0mp (mentor, maintainer)"?

I'd say:

Reviewed by:           0mp
Approved by:           0mp (mentor, maintainer)

because the role/hat is not important in case of "Reviewed by".

When it comes to the patch itself, I am surprised that it works. Last time I worked on Nix I had to change a lot of things (WIP repo is here: https://github.com/0mp/freebsd-ports-nix).

Like, for example, I know that there is a new dependency to build manual pages called mdbook. So I am surprised it is not in the patch you submitted.

I'll try to build 2.3.10 now and run the test suite and let you know how I would like to proceed.

[0mp]

It worked. That's very interesting... Anyway, thanks for the patch!