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: xterm: Accept $SHELL even if not in /etc/shells
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 17:59:04 +0100
Message-ID: <87ha813a1z.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87zjlvh276.fsf@netris.org> <20140213080720.GA28268@jocasta.intra>
	<87txc3h005.fsf@netris.org> <871tz7p354.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87ha83m0wg.fsf@netris.org> <87r4763qp7.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20140214123214.GA4956@jocasta.intra>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55311)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1WEM6Z-0007MG-Sb
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:59:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1WEM6U-0002EE-PR
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:59:11 -0500
Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a01:474::1]:45996)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>)
	id 1WEM6U-0002E7-Ig
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2014 11:59:06 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20140214123214.GA4956@jocasta.intra> (John Darrington's message
	of "Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:32:14 +0100")
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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

John Darrington <john@darrington.wattle.id.au> skribis:

> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 11:59:32AM +0100, Ludovic Court??s wrote:
>      However, we???re just packaging an existing application.  IMO, when =
we
>      find such limitations (it???s really a limitation, and not something=
 that
>      makes it completely unusable), we should submit the improvement
>      upstream, unless upstream no longer exists (I???m not sure if this i=
s the
>      case here.)
>=20=20=20=20=20=20
>
> I think the following are true (please correct me if not):
>
> * Most (all?) the files in gnu/packages/patches fall into the category of=
=20
>   "limitations" to upstream.
>
> * In principle, those patch files could be directly applied to upstream
>   without modification.

I think most of the patches in there are fixes (normally submitted
upstream), or adjustments so that things can build/run in our
environment (patches we don=E2=80=99t want to submit.)

> This being the case, would it not be a good idea, to have some kind of web
> interface to these patch files to make it easy for upstream maintainers t=
o=20
> fetch them.  (perhaps there is sucha page already)

Yes, the page is:

  http://www.gnu.org/software/guix/package-list.html

It lists patches and =E2=80=98patch snippets=E2=80=99 for each package.

Ludo=E2=80=99.