persepolis,qnotero: mark broken on Darwin for ZHF

[reckenrode]

Description of changes

I found these while working on resolving build failures during a nixpkgs-review for fixes for staging-next #263535. While it might be possible to make these build, it would require non-trivial changes to their build scripts. Mark them broken for ZHF.

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/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 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.

[pbsds]

Is it common to mark packages broken this early in ZHF?

[wegank]

I'd say these are leftovers from the last ZHF and should have been marked as broken five months ago.

And I am indeed surprised that there's a PR fixing one of them.