From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark H Weaver Subject: bug#31319: ghc-case-insensitive: Duplicate 'inputs' field. Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 13:59:51 -0400 Message-ID: <87lgcrcrxk.fsf@netris.org> References: <87a7tka8ko.fsf@netris.org> <878t8swj9n.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]:52182) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpsI-0007OQ-QN for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 14:01:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpsE-00037u-Vy for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 14:01:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:48908) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpsE-00037B-SV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 14:01:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fGpsE-0000Y1-Ev for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 May 2018 14:01:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <878t8swj9n.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 10 May 2018 00:34:28 +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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 31319@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludovic, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Our 'ghc-case-insensitive' package contains two 'inputs' field >> initializers. If I'm not mistaken, the first one is being effectively >> ignored, so 'ghc-hunit' is not actually an input. >> >> It would be good to clean this up so that we can start raising errors >> when duplicate field initializers are present. > > What about applying your patch that detects duplicate fields, rebuilding > all the .go files, and then resolving any such case by keeping only the > last occurrence of the field? > > This is what happens currently anyway so it won=E2=80=99t change the deri= vations > produced for the faulty packages. 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. What do you think? Mark