From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Woodcroft Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add rubygems updater. Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2016 10:11:37 +1000 Message-ID: <568715B9.5060803@uq.edu.au> References: <56863869.6080501@uq.edu.au> <20160101092803.GA19934@thebird.nl> <5686609E.80309@uq.edu.au> <87fuyhgo5u.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38221) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9nQ-0001Gf-8r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:11:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aF9nL-0005gp-9K for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 01 Jan 2016 19:11:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87fuyhgo5u.fsf@gnu.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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=c3=a8s?= Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Ben Woodcroft skribis: > >> On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: >>>> It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in >>>> ruby.scm. Going through each of these individually seems a little >>>> tedious, can we do them in bulk somehow or do they have to be >>>> committed individually? Building and testing all packages that >>>> require these packages would be a start - is there any way to list >>>> all dependent packages? >>>> >>>> gnu/packages/ruby.scm:2807:13: ruby-cutest would be upgraded from >>>> 1.2.2 to 1.2.3 >>>> gnu/packages/ruby.scm:333:13: ruby-rspec-mocks would be upgraded >>>> from 3.2.1 to 3.4.0 >>> (etc) >>> >>> I don't think it is a good idea to automatically update >>> packages. Reason being that packages should be updated by someone who >>> is actively using that new version. Automated tests are one thing, >>> real user feedback another. Not to mention that many gems don't have >>> tests ;). >> I think we should update the package definitions so that more have >> tests, and failing that import the library so we know it can at least >> be loaded, like this: >> >> + `(#:phases >> + (modify-phases %standard-phases >> + (replace 'check >> + (lambda _ >> + (zero? (system* "ruby" "-Ilib" "-r" "ansi"))))))) > The only case where this would make a difference is for leaf packages, > no? In all the other cases, building dependent packages will ensure > that the package at hand works as expected. Sure, but even in the case where they aren't leaf packages at least the=20 build error gets thrown when building the package at fault. There's also=20 the important difference that it makes the packager feel less bad about=20 the disappointing lack of tests or the necessity of disabling them=20 because of circular dependencies. ben