Re: [PATCH 3] gnunet-svn (was Re: [PATCH] gnunet.scm -> various changes (description update, adds gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn, gnurl))

[Nils Gillmann]

Jookia <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 07:49:48PM +0200, Nils Gillmann wrote:
>> >> +;; We provide SVN in addition to the older 0.10.1 version,
>> >> +;; protocol and API compatibility will be broken when GNUnet bug #4165
>> >> +;; is fixed.
>> >> +(define-public gnunet-svn
>> >> +  (package
>> >> +    (name "gnunet-svn")
>> >> +    (version "0.10.1.svn36926")
>> >> +    (source
>> >> +     (origin
>> >> +       (method svn-fetch)
>> >> +       (uri (svn-reference
>> >> +             (url "https://gnunet.org/svn/gnunet/";)
>> >> +             (revision 36926)))
>> >
>> > Are SVN identifiers really that short, or is there a longer version that
>> > we should use, as for Git?
>>
>> I have no idea, I thought this was what we used for svn.
>> Most of the -svn is done by Jookia, i just fixed the way they
>> were arranged, named, described and some other fixes.
>
> Apologies for not being on IRC, I'm currently away from my main machine so I"m
> left with a decaying Arch Linux install that doesn't have an OpenVPN 
> container.
>
> Yes, SVN identifiers are really that short- they're the count of commits done 
> to
> the centralized repository. The reason this isn't a thing in Git is because of
> decentralization, there'd be no way to keep a monotonic revision number with 
> the
> amount of branches and private repositories.
>
>> >> +    (arguments
>> >> +     '(#:configure-flags
>> >> +       (list (string-append "--with-nssdir=" %output "/lib"))
>> >
>> > It needs help referring to its own output?
>>
>> Refer to Jookia, will ping Jookia later about this thread.

I try a build without this, compare it to my own svn build on
gentoo and see if it's necessary.

>>
>> >> +       #:parallel-tests? #f
>> >> +       ;; test_gnunet_service_arm fails; reported upstream
>> >> +       #:tests? #f
>> >
>> > Okay, is it easy to disable just the failing test? Also, can you include
>> > a link to the upstream bug report in this comment?
>>
>> I don't know which bugreport this refers to, waiting for comment
>> by Jookia.
>
> So both of these flags are present in the original gnunet package. Perhaps 
> it'd
> be worth seeing if we can remove them in the case they're fied upstream.

Thanks. I do appropriate changes later today and test build and
run the packages.

>> Why? gnunet-$version is the stable release, gnunet-svn is the svn
>> release. Both should carry information visible to users on why
>> there are different packages.
>
> I'd have to agree with keeping this information, especially since the response
> to many GNUnet problems is to "use the SVN version.", which is exactly what
> people will find here. It's also useful Guix runs on foreign distributions so
> people won't have to spend headaches getting it compiled.
>
> Overall good patches, I'm glad there's a lot of interest and discussion here.
> Nothing seems off to me, but those are famous last words and I haven't 
> reviewed
> the split patches yet, I'll put it on my 'I'll review it this week' list and
> come back next month sometime with replies if it's not merged.
>
>> -- 
>> ng
>> personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org
>> EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN
>
> Jookia.
>
>

-- 
ng
personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org
EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/EDN