From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:47816) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOmJ8-0004EM-Os for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 12:54:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOmJ2-0007oy-GQ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 12:54:09 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50933) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hOmJ0-0007ln-H9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 12:54:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hOmJ0-0005il-CW for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 09 May 2019 12:54:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#35653] [PATCH] gnu: Add rcm. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 18:52:56 +0200 From: Danny Milosavljevic Message-ID: <20190509185256.309d9b63@scratchpost.org> In-Reply-To: <20190509153834.26585-1-josh@inv.alid.pw> References: <20190509153834.26585-1-josh@inv.alid.pw> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/Av=ZeD=PDYAokLEnAwUKH_v"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Josh Holland Cc: 35653@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/Av=ZeD=PDYAokLEnAwUKH_v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Thu, 9 May 2019 16:38:34 +0100 Josh Holland wrote: > First, I wasn't sure whether it fits into an existing module already. > I had a look through the contents of gnu/packages/ but I didn't see > anything that really stuck out. Perhaps it fits into shellutils? Yes, and it's not so important in which module what is. The module name is not part of the package name anyway, so we are mostly using it to manage compilation complexity (sigh). Developers can find it using "guix edit rcm" anyway. I try not to introduce a new module for each package because it leads to a lot of file header duplication, and at some point the comment/code ratio is getting ridiculous--but, technically, even that would be fine. > This may or may not be the right way to go about things; I'd appreciate > some feedback on that. Looks fine. > If there are any ideas to solve the tests, or any other issues that need > fixing, I'm happy to re-submit the patch. > + (arguments '(#:tests? #f)) =46rom your description, try (#:parallel-tests? #f) instead of (#:tests? #f). Nice work! Some test scripts still have /bin/sh --Sig_/Av=ZeD=PDYAokLEnAwUKH_v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlzUWugACgkQ5xo1VCww uqVdXwgAizRGxTGeJCkRRAG8qyZhhIEbzg2LGJTwsP55F3PB+oU7sy/lr1FJDRi2 FoxiP9yu6UarZ0iDWFAkEJFj64cp5glcgmSZC81JQUy7qy0imy3WVIa8fQ3EfE1Q dJGHdZxjI4HOwVTNHC/eyzsRSFShhStOuJ84kquez5zLoqnglblA+SOXNFgEAKwl mvTFMRo7Wy2SyJ+98k245eoTEPBHaNKsnk62IAQMP6oN3pLsHp5nj+g34i0/DKaj 8AfKod4vG61UE9dX7mehTP2wZGIVXDiSzPfsOwG2PtbgPMTU8YP12YgZwjtL1nPe 9cDbxG/UH9fSVyGwyDUbgL5UCSLXQw== =Lle4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Av=ZeD=PDYAokLEnAwUKH_v--