[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[zimoun]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 16:56, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> I have already merged, can you rebase your changes against master? :)

By "merged", you mean pushed. ;-)

It is not a rebase, but another commit, right?
What will be the commit message?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
refresh: Fix internal variable name.

* guix/scripts/refresh.scm (%option): Fix internal variable name.
--8<---------------cut here---------------stop-------------->8---

It is ok?

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 61 bytes --]

Sure thing!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[zimoun]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 539 bytes --]

What mess did you do Pierre? :-)

Why are you the author of ee9a735bc8 [1]?
Why there are lines modified in guix.texi 21f4fbdd84 [2] which are not
in the original patch [3]?

[1] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=ee9a735bc8f544cf8eedc6c6a7e4ed2962663013
[2] https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=21f4fbdd8453e489fb89825c4226a0a0bda2bc17
[3] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38678#65

Or why I have missed?

Attached the change fix your early push of the 'refresh' patch. :-)

Cheers,
simon

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-refresh-Fix-internal-variable-name.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1602 bytes --]

From 8dfcf205f023b609117f3da9007e830df406357b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 18:30:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] refresh: Fix internal variable name.

* guix/scripts/refresh.scm (%option): Fix internal variable name.
---
 guix/scripts/refresh.scm | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/scripts/refresh.scm b/guix/scripts/refresh.scm
index bc8e906054..efada1df5a 100644
--- a/guix/scripts/refresh.scm
+++ b/guix/scripts/refresh.scm
@@ -120,16 +120,16 @@
 
         ;; The short option -L is already used by --list-updaters, therefore
         ;; it needs to be removed from %standard-build-options.
-        (let ((%load-path-option (find (lambda (option)
+        (let ((load-path-option (find (lambda (option)
                                          (member "load-path"
                                                  (option-names option)))
                                        %standard-build-options)))
           (option
            (filter (lambda (name) (not (equal? #\L name)))
-                   (option-names %load-path-option))
-           (option-required-arg? %load-path-option)
-           (option-optional-arg? %load-path-option)
-           (option-processor     %load-path-option)))
+                   (option-names load-path-option))
+           (option-required-arg? load-path-option)
+           (option-optional-arg? load-path-option)
+           (option-processor     load-path-option)))
 
         (option '(#\h "help") #f #f
                 (lambda args
-- 
2.23.0

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 445 bytes --]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> What mess did you do Pierre? :-)
>
> Why are you the author of ee9a735bc8 [1]?
> Why there are lines modified in guix.texi 21f4fbdd84 [2] which are not
> in the original patch [3]?

I just fixed the conflict of the copyright line because it got updated
in the meantime.  That's it :)

I'm the committer of the patch, not the author though.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> What mess did you do Pierre? :-)
>
> Why are you the author of ee9a735bc8 [1]?

Good question :(  My apologies, it seems that when I resolve the
conflict your authorship was lost in the process.  Sorry about that.

> Why there are lines modified in guix.texi 21f4fbdd84 [2] which are not
> in the original patch [3]?

Hmmm... Looks like Emacs' ws-buttler had a hickup here.  I don't know
why, sorry about that.

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 91 bytes --]

And I've merged your last patch.  Thanks!

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[zimoun]

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 at 13:01, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:

> > Why are you the author of ee9a735bc8 [1]?
>
> Good question :(  My apologies, it seems that when I resolve the
> conflict your authorship was lost in the process.  Sorry about that.

You owe me a beer at Guix Days 1. ;-)


> > Why there are lines modified in guix.texi 21f4fbdd84 [2] which are not
> > in the original patch [3]?
>
> Hmmm... Looks like Emacs' ws-buttler had a hickup here.  I don't know
> why, sorry about that.

Well, you owe me a beer at Guix Days 2. ;-)


Yes, extra spaces had been introduced by these commits:
21531add320
83db0205060
The good point is now, it is fixed. ;-)


What I do not understand is: why 'ws-buttler' had a hiccup? Did you
modify my patch? I mean ws-buttler generally works by hooking
(before-save-hook), therefore to have a hiccup, 'ws-buttler' needed a
modification then a save, right? Why?


Thank you for reviewing and pushing.
I will remind that you owe me 2 belgian beers. ;-)


Cheers,
simon

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[Pierre Neidhardt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 528 bytes --]

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> What I do not understand is: why 'ws-buttler' had a hiccup? Did you
> modify my patch? I mean ws-buttler generally works by hooking
> (before-save-hook), therefore to have a hiccup, 'ws-buttler' needed a
> modification then a save, right? Why?

I think this happened when I resolved the conflict (with Ediff).

> Thank you for reviewing and pushing.
> I will remind that you owe me 2 belgian beers. ;-)

Stella Artois? :D

-- 
Pierre Neidhardt
https://ambrevar.xyz/

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 487 bytes --]

[bug#38678] Command line option in addition to GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH - Reason?

[zimoun]

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:12, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
>
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > What I do not understand is: why 'ws-buttler' had a hiccup? Did you
> > modify my patch? I mean ws-buttler generally works by hooking
> > (before-save-hook), therefore to have a hiccup, 'ws-buttler' needed a
> > modification then a save, right? Why?
>
> I think this happened when I resolved the conflict (with Ediff).

You have not resolved a conflict for this one. It was for the previous
one. That's why I do not understand.

But it does not matter. Only the beers you owe me matter ;-)

Cheer,
simon