From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id MB4zLrIBzF8RTgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 21:54:58 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id +NUgKrIBzF+GYgAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 21:54:58 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8067B940105 for ; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36638 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klfW5-0004NE-Dw for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:54:57 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51828) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klfVt-0004LR-SP for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:54:45 -0500 Received: from mira.cbaines.net ([212.71.252.8]:39102) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1klfVr-0005Br-MO for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Dec 2020 16:54:45 -0500 Received: from localhost (188.28.112.220.threembb.co.uk [188.28.112.220]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 802DA27BBFF; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:54:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from capella (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id b37efe40; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 21:54:39 +0000 (UTC) References: <87im9g4ukt.fsf@netris.org> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.13; emacs 27.1 From: Christopher Baines To: Raghav Gururajan Subject: Re: Questionable "cosmetic changes" commits In-reply-to: Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 21:54:36 +0000 Message-ID: <87lfebrk9v.fsf@cbaines.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.71.252.8; envelope-from=mail@cbaines.net; helo=mira.cbaines.net X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ryan Prior Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.90 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8067B940105 X-Spam-Score: -1.90 X-Migadu-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu X-TUID: u1UTY8rjX6es --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Raghav Gururajan writes: > Hi Mark! > >> Meanwhile, you've only provided a rationale for 1 out of 3 of the kinds >> of changes made in these commits. >>=20 >> Do you have an explanation for why you are removing comments in your >> "cosmetic changes" commits? For example, the following two commits >> remove comments that explain why 'propagated-inputs' are needed: >>=20 >> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=3Dc3264f9e100ad6aefe5216= 002b68f3bfdcf6be95 >> https://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=3D416b1b9f56b514677660b5= 6992cea1c78e00f519 >>=20 >> What's your rationale for doing this? Am I the only one here who finds >> this practice objectionable? It's not even mentioned in the commit logs. > > I think the comments are useful for non-trivial cases. In these > definitions, the inputs were propagated because they were mentioned in > .pc files. Propagation because of pkg-config is trivial. So I removed > the comments. In the context of writing Guix packages, propagating the necessary inputs to support other packages finding the library via pkg-config is a serious thing, not trivial. If it breaks, dependent packages will likely change in behaviour or stop building entirely. As for the comments, personally, I think the reasons behind propagated inputs are individual enough and important enough to each package that it's useful to write them down, even if that comment is "these things are referenced by the .pc file". That way others looking at the package definition don't have to wonder or try and dig through the Git history to find information about what's going on. Anyway, I think the most useful output from this discussion is amending or adding to the packaging guilelines to cover this: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Packaging-Guidelines.html --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAl/MAZxfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XcbiQ/+LpHjARMh2gNqQ9CYesaadyfP5jRdfYZv GmA2kKh9Z4LqxxhIwsSUe25kq9rqLuax7Bhc6EaKxCLnd8Pj98axUURO9gqAGOm4 Sxdssl1EDwlzH4zqEEA9tA6ZMf0FjWy8NcCe0MIFv6fLVUhauAH/6SKbufDYQh4l YpLgQAs9UPxmCG15tQpLoC+LbGXeXn9IsWml/SyP2BlAWEcPf/jdIFDmWpTazqBy JiseAJEIARGRoKr9QDMYIfyf7qRM/smAbxICwGMBnz8MfA9S1dfYZKqVeb3qDq1M 9CYrP9muBo8DGWnjnf/aEXJFIdsZ0YBzFRd5hqFWKBbGNyCIXZRa5krJxIOJNRGD yQtNgY//zvW/lmY+j2w2+gNhKQFW1dJ+vzZNu17CH7vwBde6QT8vfQzFVX3gyMd6 Z6T3qYtU+VxEhMGIWtdFuBgme4tlOI3XE9CrkbD8tjj77mXhhHbHfoAgHzoT+VER ahLztn1c0ZmnmDv/mjeRf/IoclTFOFdwBL/bDoGLTviAc0BJGCcWQybRwjZgmmF5 YzWlSWuRsJm3ooh2urwhM7IxoaaRXAogdnZuNIi4RDqg4NWrzQri8VBSJX9ccSxl Hycv+cvRYPnUyyI2q/sNfh/HtmE8idC6CqBALlplyl4xPmKIV7QG6PcUDNBUhUna xMlaKhxc7GI= =pFUm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--