From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#31319: ghc-case-insensitive: Duplicate 'inputs' field. Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:05:06 +0200 Message-ID: <871scliy9p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a7tka8ko.fsf@netris.org> <878t8swj9n.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgcrcrxk.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZyWt-0001ud-NR for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:06:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZyWo-0006lP-Pe for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:06:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:34786) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fZyWo-0006lF-M7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:06:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fZyWo-0002hf-Cn for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jul 2018 09:06:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87lgcrcrxk.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Thu, 10 May 2018 13:59:51 -0400") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 31319@debbugs.gnu.org Hello Mark, Mark H Weaver skribis: > It's true that it wouldn't change anything to simply remove those > ignored duplicate field initializers. However, I thought it would be > better to give people familiar with these packages an opportunity to > investigate. Someone may have had a good reason for adding those > inputs, even if they are not strictly needed for a successful build. > > Of course, at some point we should timeout on this. I would advocate > commenting out the redundant duplicates instead of simply deleting them, > along with a FIXME comment asking someone to investigate. We could also > look in the commit history to find out who added those redundant inputs, > and ask them directly. > > If you're impatient to get the duplicate field detection patch committed > soon, I could implement these "timeout" measures in the next couple of > days. I think we should go ahead now and mechanically fix packages with duplicate fields, and apply the duplicate detection patch. Would you like to do that? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.