From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45100) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fCKH7-0001Z6-Iy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 03:28:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fCKH4-0002hA-Es for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 03:28:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:33652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fCKH4-0002gy-9s for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 03:28:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fCKH3-00036O-Vg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 03:28:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#31281] [PATCH] gnu: python-yapf: Update to 0.21.0. Resent-Message-ID: From: Fis Trivial Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 07:27:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <87wowr7rlf.fsf@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <87wowr7rlf.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Oleg Pykhalov Cc: "31281@debbugs.gnu.org" <31281@debbugs.gnu.org> Oleg Pykhalov writes: > Hello Fis, > > First of all thank you for this patch! > > Fis Trivial writes: > >> * gnu/packages/python.scm (python-yapf): Update to 0.21.0. >> --- >> gnu/packages/python.scm | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm >> index a5d533b1c..bfba6cd8d 100644 >> --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm >> +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm >> @@ -12689,7 +12689,7 @@ and works only with Python 2 and NumPy < 1.9.") >> (define-public python-yapf >> (package >> (name "python-yapf") >> - (version "0.20.1") >> + (version "0.21.0") >> (source >> (origin >> (method url-fetch) > > Could you take a look on updating a hash, please? > Oh, no. What was I thinking... Sorry about that. Will send a new patch. Thanks.