On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 06:17:47PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 03:17:57PM -0700, Dylan Jeffers wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:41:28 -0400
> > Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 04:07:11PM -0700, Dylan Jeffers wrote:
> > > > > The latest upstream version 0.7. Is there a reason not to use the
> > > > > latest version in this case?  
> > > > 
> > > > For my immediate purposes, I need pypump 0.6, since thats the
> > > > version used in my projects. Since the versions are quite
> > > > different, maybe we include both of them?  
> > > 
> > > I think we should package the latest version, at least.
> > > 
> > > Maybe we could also package 0.6 with a package 'python-pypump-0.6'
> > > that inherits from python-pypump. Or, you could keep that inherited
> > > python-pypump-0.6 in a private package repo, and use
> > > GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH.
> > > 
> > > I'd prefer the latter option. I don't think we have a precedent of
> > > adding old releases, although we do sometimes keep them around for
> > > compatibility. But I could be mistaken.
> > > 
> > > What do people think we should do?
> > 
> > Yes I agree with the second alternative as well.
> 
> Okay, will you send a patch for it?
> 

I tried to apply the original patch but it failed. Can you send an
updated patch set? I've also included the pypump-0.7 patch that I wrote.
I have no real way to test it, but maybe you do.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted