From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#31726: confirming proposed change Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 22:34:05 +0200 Message-ID: <87fu1vhf7m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87po11l59e.fsf@gnu.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]:46079) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRkZl-0000i5-88 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:35:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRkZi-0004Ys-9H for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:35:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33649) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fRkZi-0004Yd-5Z for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:35:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fRkZh-0001qM-TK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2018 16:35:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: (Jack Hill's message of "Fri, 8 Jun 2018 15:46:46 -0400 (EDT)") 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: Jack Hill Cc: 31726@debbugs.gnu.org Hi, Jack Hill skribis: >> Jack Hill skribis: >> >>> Sure, I'll give make a path a go. You're thinking that I should try >>> applying the changes that the commit introduced as part of our package >>> definition? >> >> Yes, either that or use a snapshot of upstream haskell-mode. > > I have started workign on a patch implementing the former. I've > included what I have so far below, but it's not ready to be included > in the distribution because not all of the tests pass. Maybe this is > because the one patch shouldn't be applied in issolation and it would > be bettter to take the snapshot approach? > > Otherwise, is what I did with the package revision reasonable? Yes, definitely. > From 62ae1a14c48f3d70e6f47ffd6de60a0b9af9d43f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jack Hill > Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 22:54:12 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] Patch haskell-mode to remove unused lexical variables > > --- > gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 174 +++++++++++----= ------ > ...ell-mode-removed-unused-lexical-variables.patch | 42 +++++ > 2 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 85 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/haskell-mode-removed-unused-lexi= cal-variables.patch You=E2=80=99ll need to add the patch to gnu/local.mk. > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/haskell-mode-removed-unused-lexical-variables.= patch Please add a line or two with the URL of the upstream bug report or patch, and maybe a few words on what the patch is about. Thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.