From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:38404) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRIFD-0002rA-5f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:29:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRIFC-0004RP-Mx for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:29:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jRIFC-0004QM-A9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:29:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jRIFC-0007ft-57 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:29:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#40753] gnu: spacefm: Add missing dependencies. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 12:28:33 -0400 From: Raghav Gururajan Message-ID: <20200422122833.076c8a60.raghavgururajan@disroot.org> In-Reply-To: <87ftcw81bl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20200421172812.6227b2eb.raghavgururajan@disroot.org> <87ftcw81bl.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Cc: 40753@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Jan! > > BLOCKERS: #40630 and #40752. > > ...what does this mean? They are dependencies of this patch, that needs to be pushed before this patch. > It builds OK without this patch; it does not seem that any dependencies > are missing. Could it be that these dependencies change or amend its > behaviour? It is to change and amend the behaviour. It adds missing features and fixes icons+privilege-management+disk-management. > After applying this patch, spacefm does not build for me, I get > > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ ./pre-inst-env guix build spacefm > ice-9/eval.scm:223:20: In procedure proc: > error: eject: unbound variable > hint: Did you forget a `use-modules' form? > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- That's correct. Eject is provided by one of the blockers. > I am feeling a bit uncomfortable about the fact that you pinged me to > "push" this patch, it seems it needs a bit more attention than that. I apologize. I spent whole day to create these patches and throughly testing them. If I missed anything, please understand it would not have been intentional. Also, there is a v2 patch in #40753 thread that has 3 blockers. Thank you for considering my request. Regards, RG.