From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34274) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fATxP-00085A-1I for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:24:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fATxN-00015C-Eu for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:24:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:56718) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fATxN-000155-B3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:24:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fATxN-0002TD-1A for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Apr 2018 01:24:05 -0400 Subject: [bug#31178] [PATCH] gnu: Add inxi. Resent-Message-ID: From: Oleg Pykhalov References: <20180416123830.28716-1-ambrevar@gmail.com> <87r2n6gbpg.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh7mr17w.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:23:11 +0300 In-Reply-To: <87sh7mr17w.fsf@gmail.com> (Pierre Neidhardt's message of "Mon, 23 Apr 2018 10:03:23 +0530") Message-ID: <87in8ifqdc.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; 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: Pierre Neidhardt Cc: 31178@debbugs.gnu.org, 31176@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Pierre and Ludovic, Pierre Neidhardt writes: > I didn't know Oleg was going to submit a patch, maybe there was some > confusion in the process :p I've mentioned it in our mailing list discussion, see https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2018-04/msg00130.html Nevertheless thank you for a 31178! :-) > I've quickly reviewed our two patches. Overall I'd opt for mine :p > > - It's the latest version. > - It has more inputs. I thought that we stuck with an =E2=80=98inxi=E2=80=99 Perl script version = (31178) and there was no patch until I pushed one. It's better to get 31178 version than 31176 ofcourse because of =E2=80=98inxi=E2=80=99 version. But I don't like all those =E2=80=98propagated-inputs=E2=80=99 except =E2= =80=98perl-*=E2=80=99 and I guess we could do better. Maybe we could use PATH for non =E2=80=98perl-*= =E2=80=99 inputs the same way as in 31176. WDYT? > I think we should use propagated-inputs and not native-inputs. What do > you think? I'm not sure about 31178 currently. Usually we prefer to avoid =E2=80=98propagated-inputs=E2=80=99 if possible in Guix, because all =E2=80= =98propagated-inputs=E2=80=99 will be in a Guix profile and could lead to collisions. If you are talking about 31176, then no, because I've used a wrapper to find all =E2=80=98inxi-minimal=E2=80=99 or =E2=80=98inxi=E2=80=99 requisite= s. It was easy to do, because =E2=80=98inxi=E2=80=99 in 31176 is a Shell script, not a Perl scrip= t. Thanks to Chris Marusich for an idea. [=E2=80=A6] [1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D31176 Oleg. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEc+OyAXw1EaDPCmAPckbhHGm3lWkFAlrdbb8ACgkQckbhHGm3 lWkaBA/8CdSr9ABsskakoLnL1cW56Rhd8AsJhZfBoYBn3gUvGnR7y+vf3zafl8E5 etlD2gpq3yI3qxtH5yBUmhaXkUH6C5A48cwcuK1VXsP5nxGMuxvMTUI/TR+WshUj 3c4tAEwhmu66TJg2mf7dFyUdmOASTVvr759602dyOZfTEzyHVN5mxzoWEn9zjLZj Y+Gd3x/O60gYuYVPBFruN6icQb3V66Ml2Jt91Rlzf9/kJzAUOjq3deUk8isV48mL lOZ6e/YyXE27vaAIsjg10f2ozouoERpEVQJce+UDLBkmhJesm/4igZzAVXdahSIV kIM3cDLRmLKcNUfYunqIrKEa0AToaURGfRXjHS1L6V6kDTY0NfTL1V3ZyMu1WRA7 yhQav5TjBGjezA5PKfytBQDPkqyzy1hPLuukj2S0qPQR1XZmsXRFGedsFtpmXN1b l8VdAR/qdXmGxrWNqmbA03t1yaw/QY2VcI8WMse3enJMRCykYj6O+GIEXW8LOMpM I2e7yKBCTxfOTb/EfqhF9XURsZvhBVl1dVv8CU8A/5Bq2mhdN7qViCYZMSoBkm9b FoxgHWy8mM+QKH5dEL1X7QFX8+BnqXtNyDNpHG4MdS5JFF7+gs4jYOQgQrlIGgCq c/FWXujvkPyNczv8VjNfhoDv28QDZxoxPoCBQhQ0eGXPe5WnEFQ= =Sfaq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--