Re: 'core-updates' Q4 2019

[Kei Kebreau <kkebreau@posteo.net>]

Hello again Miguel,

I apologize for the delay.  My semester at university is becoming
busier as final exams get closer!

On Fri, 2019-11-08 at 01:58 +0100, Miguel Arruga Vivas wrote:
> Hi Kei,
...
> > >  - The patch for gedit contains a reference to libgd, wouldn't it
> > > be
> > >    clearer for the reader/updater to have it defined in a let
> > > over
> > > the package definition and use the name in native-inputs?
> > >  
> > 
> > I'm not sure.  I don't know if there is an explicit convention for
> > packaging software that is distributed like this, and the examples
> > of
> > this in the code base (that I've seen, at least) define the
> > third-party library the way I've done it here.  I'm open to change
> > on
> > this point though.
> 
> This actually should have been an open question, as I have a patch on
> libosinfo, related with gnome-boxes (patches coming soon) and it
> doesn't feel right for me having usb.ids and pci.ids hidden there, so
> I've put another origin needed (osinfo-db) out there.
> 

After some thought, I believe it is clearer to someone reading the
package to see the origin object defined in the "native-inputs" field
rather than a let over the whole package.  The extra "let" adds a layer
of indirection in reading the code that I'm not sure pays off.  Also,
such a bound variable could be accessed both directly and through the
"native-inputs" field, so that could be confusing as well.

> > >  - Is there any reason to not patch-out the gtk-icon-update-cache
> > >    invocations?  If I understand it correctly, this is performed
> > > at
> > >    profile level, so makes no sense creating a cache at package
> > > level, isn't it? The patches for quadrapassel, gnome-klotski,
> > > ghex,
> > >    gnome-sudoku, gnome-mines, five-or-more and gedit contain
> > > references to it.  Maybe creating a package like
> > > xorg-server-for-tests (perhaps 'gtk-bin-for-build'?) linked to
> > > "true" from coreutils would help in the long term.
> > >  
> > 
> > I don't think such a reason exists.  I could add changes that
> > substitute calls to "gtk-icon-update-cache" with "true" for these
> > packages, but I agree that a better solution may be possible.
> > Perhaps not a package; maybe a new 'patch-gtk-icon-update-cache'
> > phase in the relevant build systems?
> 
> Some of these packages already have phases for it on master.  I
> rebased
> your branch onto it (1a9df94cec..fb936351d3), I had to solve two
> merge
> conflicts: devhelp and totem.
> 
> devhelp's patch has only a trivial conflict, as there was no
> arguments
> parameter before.  OTOH, I did not check as much as I should totem's
> last day, as now I have one question here: Who kills the Xvfb server
> on display :1 after the tests?  I see it's a common idiom, but I
> don't
> get why shouldn't the daemon treat it like from any other process and
> wait for it to reach completion (other than technical means, I mean).
> This could be a great place for a #:xorg-for-tests?, should I try?
> 

I really like the idea of an #:xorg-for-tests? flag!  If you can
attempt a patch, I'll do my best to help.

> > > As a final comment, the gnome release cycle and the amount of
> > > packages involved is quite big, so again, thank you.
> > > 
> > > Happy hacking!
> > > Miguel  
> > 
> > Thanks Miguel!  This comment and review means a lot!
> > Kei
> 
> Thank you too
> 
> Best regards,
> Miguel