From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Fix load-extension path in packaging of guile-ncurses. Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 18:02:21 +0100 Message-ID: <20161224170221.GA26932@jocasta.intra> References: <1482169820-2043-1-git-send-email-jmd@gnu.org> <1482169820-2043-2-git-send-email-jmd@gnu.org> <87lgvb9ii1.fsf@netris.org> <20161220110331.GA20543@jocasta.intra> <20161221093656.400cd7cd@scratchpost.org> <20161221095646.GA6917@jocasta.intra> <4b79e545-7ea6-3b6c-3a48-f5f1d6b1da3c@tobias.gr> <20161222082001.GA3545@jocasta.intra> <87mvflz683.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37610) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKpiJ-0002xO-CC for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:02:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKpiF-0003cP-Ac for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:02:31 -0500 Received: from de.cellform.com ([88.217.224.109]:51942 helo=jocasta.intra) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKpiF-0003bS-2A for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Dec 2016 12:02:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mvflz683.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 10:39:40AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: John Darrington writes: =20 > We can argue about this till we're blue in the face. > > But on a pragmatic level, Mark's question demonstrates perfectly > that our current system is lacking. =20 No it doesn't. Our convention, taken from the GNU coding standards, is that the rationale for non-obvious code belongs in the code itself. My question demonstrates perfectly that you should have done _that_. =20 For what it's worth, I agree that there are some cases where adding rationale comments to the code itself doesn't make sense (e.g. when removing code), but this is clearly not one of those cases. =20 > > Having it in the commit message would certainly have avoided = me=20 > > having to explain the situation to Mark too. > =20 > Perhaps. I doubt it. I can't speak for Mark, but most confusion > seemed to stem from the commit message's accuracy, not its leng= th. =20 Yes, exactly. =20 To be honest, I find it unsettling that after all that has been pointed out in this thread, you still seem unwilling to admit that you made any mistake here. =20 Have you looked at the build log, and specifically the part of the bui= ld log that corresponds to your 'fix-libguile-ncurses-file-name' phase? =20 Have you noticed how the 'build' and 'install' phases consist mostly of commands that were already run in your custom phase? =20 Do you still think that "Install shared object before attempting to build the package" is an accurate statement? =20 I offered to change this comment. You have ignored my offer. Why are you= =20 determined to start an argument? --=20 Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3=20 fingerprint =3D 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlheqh0ACgkQimdxnC3oJ7N3IgCeMCFDWADuxRkzNRPJg5ZLiQbL ac4AniRvYYsRxFn+T2KVxN0mzgkIVt8X =s4wp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--