From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id +D3/EIGZLV8HZAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:12:17 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id 4DLbDIGZLV9BZwAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:12:17 +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 C0C5B9402D1 for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 18:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:39548 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k46ql-0003A7-Bg for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:12:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58936) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k46pa-00025G-QD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:11:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:45997) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k46pa-0005Nl-Gt for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k46pa-0003mD-9T for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:11:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#42736] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-doom-themes: Update to 2.1.6-5. Resent-From: Brett Gilio Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:11:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42736 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Jack Hill Cc: 42736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 42736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42736.159682383514480 (code B ref 42736); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 18:11:02 +0000 Received: (at 42736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Aug 2020 18:10:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57543 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k46p8-0003lU-Ug for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:10:35 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:48426) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k46p5-0003lG-Rb for 42736@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:10:34 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:59041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k46oz-000519-6R; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:10:26 -0400 Received: from [2605:6000:1a0d:48fb::e9] (port=43036 helo=lenovo-t430) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1k46oy-0001tf-Nd; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 14:10:25 -0400 From: Brett Gilio References: <20200807031749.27160-1-jackhill@jackhill.us> <878serjfdk.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:10:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Jack Hill's message of "Fri, 7 Aug 2020 00:28:55 -0400 (EDT)") Message-ID: <87ft8y5nto.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -3.3 (---) 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: scn0 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: dLZ7VpTVDSF1 Jack Hill writes: > On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Brett Gilio wrote: > >> >> Hey Jack, >> >> Thanks for taking time to revise this package. When I originally wrote >> it I made notice to the fact that some elisp bytecompilations were >> failing or not behaving appropriately. Since then I am pretty sure >> hlissner has disabled the bytecompilation completely? Could you review >> this for me, and if true please revise the appropriate arguments. If you >> aren't sure what I am talking about, please let me know. > > Brett, > > I saw your lovely comment, but in my excitement that the update solved > the problem I was having with Emacs 27 compatibility, I didn't think > too hard about it. > > I believe that I understand what you're asking. I'll take a look > tomorrow to see if we should change the package definition in light of > upstream changes. If I get stuck, I'll be sure to let you know. > > Best, > Jack Sounds great! Thanks.