From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: bug#36402: installation error Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2019 21:35:25 +0200 Message-ID: <877e6i8ttu.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lfxmu47j.fsf@gnu.org> <878sr989br.fsf@gmail.com> <87a7bnaj0b.fsf@gnu.org> <87imqbgh71.fsf@gmail.com> <87woepyc7d.fsf@gnu.org> <87imq8tf88.fsf@gmail.com> <87pnkfi1nx.fsf@gnu.org> <87mufiq27h.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56539) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i72yi-0005cF-0e for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:36:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i72yg-0004ne-4a for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:36:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:58551) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1i72yg-0004nU-1h for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:36:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1i72yf-0008QB-R6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Sep 2019 15:36:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87mufiq27h.fsf@gmail.com> (Mathieu Othacehe's message of "Thu, 05 Sep 2019 15:53:22 +0200") 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: Mathieu Othacehe Cc: 36402@debbugs.gnu.org, Juan Hello, Mathieu Othacehe skribis: >> So perhaps you should define your own =E2=80=98define-wrapped-type=E2=80= =99 macro that >> does =E2=80=98define-record-type=E2=80=99 + the weak hash table thing, a= nd replace all >> =E2=80=98define-record-type=E2=80=99 instances in structs.scm with >> =E2=80=98define-wrapped-type=E2=80=99. How does that sound? > > Seems like the right thing to do :) However, I had a look to all Parted > functions which result is passed to a pointer->X! function, and except > ped_device_get, they always return newly allocated objects. So I guess > we are safe for now. OK, sounds good! Ludo=E2=80=99.