From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu packages: Clean up synopses and descriptions. Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 23:24:18 +0200 Message-ID: <87fv4mtr3x.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87wpy0nygt.fsf@gmail.com> <20150716044011.5698360e@openmailbox.org> <87a8uwyu4v.fsf@gmail.com> <87fv4ndint.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv4ndkhy.fsf@gmail.com> 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]:50017) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGD7L-0007Oo-7t for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZGD7K-000779-9K for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:24:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87fv4ndkhy.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 17 Jul 2015 15:41:29 +0300") 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2015-07-16 22:08 +0300) wrote: [...] >> The problem is that this rule sometimes conflicts with the >> =E2=80=98gnu-description=E2=80=99 checker (aka. =E2=80=98make sync-descr= iptions=E2=80=99), which checks >> upstream GNU descriptions. >> >> When such conflicts happen, we should give precedence to the GNU >> descriptions. > > Oh, I see now. But should we really give precedence to the GNU > descriptions? For example, "guix lint libffcall" says that the proposed > description is "null (stale)". That=E2=80=99s a bug on our side: It means there=E2=80=99s no upstream desc= ription, basically. > Since we have our own conventions that are not necessarily coincide with > the upstream conventions, I believe it would be better to prefer our > synopses/descriptions instead. I discussed with Karl Berry and Brandon Invergo who take care of it to make sure we have roughly the same rules. I=E2=80=99ve also adjusted =E2= =80=98guix lint=E2=80=99 accordingly (see notably 105c260.) So I think we should keep using them and email bug-womb@gnu.org when we want a change (see .) > And I think it would be good to adjust "guix lint" to avoid redundant > reports. For example, with the current (GNU) synopsis, "guix lint > hello" says: > > =E2=80=A6 hello-2.10: synopsis should not start with the package name > > With the modified synopsis, it would be: > > =E2=80=A6 hello-2.10: proposed synopsis: "Hello, GNU world: An example = GNU package" > > So no matter what variant is preferable ('synopsis' or > 'gnu-description'), we have a warning. > > I see that it's not a trivial change as lint-checkers are independent. > Perhaps there may be added some priorities, so when a stronger linter is > passed successfully, then there is no need to check for weaker linters. > (Sorry if it's not appropriate, it's just a not-very-well-formed idea :-)) Yes that would be ideal, and yes that=E2=80=99s non-trivial. :-) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.