From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: Superseded packages
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:58:55 -0400
Message-ID: <20160928175855.GA14383@jasmine>
References: <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> <87vay8r9r3.fsf_-_@gnu.org>
	<20160910172514.GA28562@jasmine> <87a8felfb9.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160911151945.GB6400@jasmine> <87bmzujhn7.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160920211833.GA3354@jasmine> <87y42if3hq.fsf@gnu.org>
	<20160925164208.GA7317@jasmine> <87r3844dn9.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49001)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bpJ8U-0008RA-OZ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:59:15 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bpJ8O-0001f6-Q5
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:59:13 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87r3844dn9.fsf@gnu.org>
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: Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
> > So the attached patch moves attic after borg and supersedes it. Is it
> > expected that we have to shuffle the package definition around like
> > this?
> 
> Yes, because ‘properties’ are evaluated eagerly.
> 
> We could change the ‘superseded’ property to always be a promise, as
> Efraim suggests; we’ll see later if that’s really necessary.
> 
> The patch LGTM.

Okay, pushed. Thanks for the details!