From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add femtolisp.
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:03:41 +0200
Message-ID: <87a8faer2a.fsf@elephly.net>
References: <20160913190416.1462-1-ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<87mvjbegxs.fsf@elephly.net> <87oa3rmtg8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<87d1k6etze.fsf@elephly.net> <874m5i3k0h.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<87y42u24nc.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60898)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1bk72n-0000cw-4N
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 06:03:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1bk72j-0001kZ-Dy
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 06:03:53 -0400
Received: from sender163-mail.zoho.com ([74.201.84.163]:21401)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>) id 1bk72j-0001kJ-64
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 06:03:49 -0400
In-reply-to: <87y42u24nc.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org


ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:

> ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:
>
>> [ Unknown signature status ]
>> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> I hope the appended patch still applies.
>>>
>>> could you please send a new, complete patch?
>>>
>>> You seem to have removed the “#t” from the “install” phase
>>> accidentally.  The return value should be kept.
>>>
>>> ~~ Ricardo
>
> Sorry, I'm not sure if I had sent the updated patch or not. The change
> is so small.

I’m sorry for the confusion.  Looking at the subject of these emails I
assumed that this patch was supposed to *add* a *new* package, not
modify an existing one.  I didn’t know that an earlier version had
already been pushed.

In this case we should probably split these changes up as they are not
related to one another.  Alternatively, the summary line should be
changed to apply to all of the changes in this patch.

~~ Ricardo