guix-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 01/01: gnu: guile-hall: Update to 0.2.


From: Alex Sassmannshausen
Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: guile-hall: Update to 0.2.
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 21:03:38 +0100
User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1

Hi Ricardo,

Thanks for the review.  Let me know if you prefer a review before commit
next time.

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>>> atheia pushed a commit to branch master
>>> in repository guix.
>>>
>>> commit 63bf0afdf6a27702879c12d7d591c46246c7ad36
>>> Author: Alex Sassmannshausen <address@hidden>
>>> Date:   Fri Feb 15 16:55:42 2019 +0100
>>>
>>>     gnu: guile-hall: Update to 0.2.
>>>
>>>     * gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm (guile-hall): Update to 0.2.
>> […]
>>> -    (license license:gpl3+)))
>> […]
>>> +    (license gpl3+)))
>>
>> I don’t think this is correct.  Did you remove the license: prefix by
>> mistake?

You're right, this is incorrect.  One of the points of Hall is to
generate reproducible guix packages — but currently they default to
using (guix licenses) without prefix.  The generated recipe hence has no
prefix. I will fix this.

> I looked over the rest of the changes and they seem to make the package
> definition much more complicated than it needs to be.  Is this in
> preparation of a bigger change in the near future?

Again, this is the result of auto-generation: Hall generically wraps any
script files in the scripts directory of a project with all Guile
dependencies — rather than the developer having to manually specify
these things.

In the case of Hall this introduces complexity because it has a simple
dependency & script structure.

I can see two ways around this:
- making hall more intelligent in future and reducing complexity if the
  dependency requirements are simpler.
- hiding the complexity inside a build system for Guix, which carries
  out the steps currently added by Hall explicitly.

What do you think?

----

I can also see that you have fixed my commit and tweaked it in several
ways — thank you for doing this.

Are the steps you carried out "the recommended way" of doing things now?
If so then I can adapt hall to default to this workflow, so we can
encourage new contributors to do "the right thing".

Cheers for your work!

Alex



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]