bug#64527: closed ([PATCH 1/2] gnu: bees: Update to 0.10.)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 19 Jul 2023 21:44:52 +0800
with message-id <87a5vsqaln.wl-hako@ultrarare.space>
and subject line Re: bug#64527: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: bees: Update to 0.10.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #64527,
regarding [PATCH 1/2] gnu: bees: Update to 0.10.
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
64527: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=64527
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> [PATCH 1/2] gnu: bees: Update to 0.10.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sat,  8 Jul 2023 11:46:25 +0800
>
>
>
>
> * gnu/packages/file-systems.scm (bees): Update to 0.10.
> ---
>  gnu/packages/file-systems.scm | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gnu/packages/file-systems.scm b/gnu/packages/file-systems.scm
> index dd84696316..0b024d6b92 100644
> --- a/gnu/packages/file-systems.scm
> +++ b/gnu/packages/file-systems.scm
> @@ -1951,7 +1951,7 @@ (define-public fuse-overlayfs
>  (define-public bees
>    (package
>      (name "bees")
> -    (version "0.9.2")
> +    (version "0.10")
>      (source (origin
>                (method git-fetch)
>                (uri (git-reference
> @@ -1970,7 +1970,7 @@ (define-public bees
>                       (("#include .crucible/city.h.") "#include <city.h>"))))
>                (sha256
>                 (base32
> -                "0xik1xg6ma5yglhvs60ny27242iapqwzikmqbgij1avjffs6776a"))))
> +                "1j1v9bxijs8gvrb7rg0q1158xjvmfc8dlzwx768fxf3w8w2gfwvz"))))
>      (build-system gnu-build-system)
>      (arguments
>       (list #:test-target "test"
>
> base-commit: 3db685cb2e2ce2a4b29c62d28a66201b2eba018f
> -- 
> 2.40.1
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#64527: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: bees: Update to 0.10.
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Wed, 19 Jul 2023 21:44:52 +0800
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 19:42:15 +0800,
> 宋文武 wrote:
> > Hello, does the 'substitute*' broken?  or why should we prefer
> > wrap-script over hardcode paths in the original executables?
>
> Nevermind, I'm still confused about whether to make a wrapper or not.
> But since it's not the preferred way (I thought it was), I'll reduce
> its use in the future.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --- End Message ---