From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] python-lzo + python-lz4
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 23:28:28 +0200
Message-ID: <20160924232828.37da66df@scratchpost.org>
References: <20160924202704.7320a289@scratchpost.org>
	<20160924195438.24364-1-dannym@scratchpost.org>
	<87y42hrqtz.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
	<20160924224557.5f85cf04@scratchpost.org>
	<87bmzd2e91.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60709)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dannym@scratchpost.org>) id 1bnuUw-0007J9-Bo
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:28:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dannym@scratchpost.org>) id 1bnuUs-0001ys-7i
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:28:37 -0400
Received: from dd1012.kasserver.com ([85.13.128.8]:38761)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <dannym@scratchpost.org>) id 1bnuUs-0001yQ-0F
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 17:28:34 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bmzd2e91.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: ng0 <ngillmann@runbox.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

> No, it is not. lzo was number 2 in the original patch couple  and is
> still intended to be applied as such.

I see what you mean but I really doubt that patchwork can see it (also because of the subject it probably will replace the entire set by just this package).