From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frederick Muriithi Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add ldc-1.1.0-beta6 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 08:55:59 +0300 Message-ID: References: <87y3ykmh23.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:37780) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQpQ2-0005ih-PF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:56:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQpQ1-0001nV-TV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 00:56:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87y3ykmh23.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" To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hello! > > Sorry for the late reply! > > ... > > One question: We usually avoid packaging software that has no release or > has an =E2=80=9Calpha=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cbeta=E2=80=9D label. Do you t= hink we could wait for 1.1.0 to > be officially released? Or are there good reasons why we should not > wait? > I chose to write the patch, since there is need for the newer versions of ldc to compile some tools like sambamba (http://lomereiter.github.io/sambamba/) successfully. These tools are needed, but will not compile with the older stable version (0.17.2). Since both versions, the stable version and one of the beta versions, might be needed, I thought to write a definition for it, to get it on guix and make it easier to provide the tools for the scientists on the bleeding edge. > > ... > > Could you add a comment explaining why the previous version of these is > needed, instead of the current version? > > ... > > Could you add a line or two explaining at the top of patch explaining > what it does and why, and what its upstream status is? > > For example, I think this one disables a test that would require GDB, > which is not an input (?), and presumably it won=E2=80=99t be submitted > upstream. > > ... > > I think it=E2=80=99s better to just delete the two lines instead of comme= nting > them out: that makes the patch easier to read. > > Hope this makes sense. > > Thanks for your contribution! > > Ludo=E2=80=99. Thanks for the feedback. I will work on these and send an updated patch. --=20 Frederick M. Muriithi