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 KB4ZN+R9pF/qYwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 22:34:12 +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 WDLZMuR9pF8LVwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 22:34:12 +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 7263B9401BD for ; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:34:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:48322 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanpb-0003Ss-2j for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:34:11 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:43288) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanpS-0003Sl-3c for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:34:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:42854) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kanpR-00060A-R1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:34:01 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kanpR-0004Qm-O9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:34:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#44249] [PATCH v3] gnu: emacs: Make strip-double-wrap more robust. Resent-From: Nicolas Goaziou Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 22:34:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 44249 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com Cc: 44249@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 44249-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B44249.160461560816989 (code B ref 44249); Thu, 05 Nov 2020 22:34:01 +0000 Received: (at 44249) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2020 22:33:28 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54400 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kanot-0004Px-US for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:33:28 -0500 Received: from relay6-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.198]:36947) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kanos-0004Pk-EX for 44249@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 05 Nov 2020 17:33:26 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 185.131.40.67 Received: from localhost (40-67.ipv4.commingeshautdebit.fr [185.131.40.67]) (Authenticated sender: admin@nicolasgoaziou.fr) by relay6-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97CC5C0009; Thu, 5 Nov 2020 22:33:20 +0000 (UTC) From: Nicolas Goaziou References: Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 23:33:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Morgan J. Smith's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 14:47:13 -0500") Message-ID: <875z6jl9hs.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: kpynFflW442j Hello, > (Can you reopen this bug report please?) I think you need to open a new one. > So I see 3 possible solutions: > 1. Accept my first patch and give up on match > 2. Accept this patch and modify almost every emacs varient (I did test building them all) > 3. Figure out some proper module inheritence > > I think option 3 is the most correct, but I'm lazy so I'm leaning > towards option 1. I think I cannot help you, as I'm not sure about how module inheritance is handled. Maybe someone else can chime in. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou