From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56796)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4ueb-0003F7-9K
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:37:10 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4ueW-0001TD-DG
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:37:09 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:49878)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1d4ueW-0001T2-5Y
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:37:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1d4ueV-00012P-Vq
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:37:03 -0400
Subject: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.26718.B26718.14935809653899@debbugs.gnu.org>
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:35:44 +0200
From: Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>
Message-ID: <20170430213539.789280bb@lepiller.eu>
In-Reply-To: <e91cf3ea-eeff-74d9-d5cd-bfab0b00016c@tobias.gr>
References: <20170430192256.40abec3c@lepiller.eu>
	<e91cf3ea-eeff-74d9-d5cd-bfab0b00016c@tobias.gr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: 26718@debbugs.gnu.org

Le Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:19:49 +0200,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> a =C3=A9crit :

> Julien,
>=20
> [...]
>=20
> > + (with-directory-excursion "m4"
> > +   (for-each (lambda (f) (delete-file f))
> > +             '("intltool.m4" "libtool.m4" "lt~obsolete.m4"
> > +               "ltoptions.m4" "ltsugar.m4" "ltversion.m4")))
> > + (delete-file-recursively "build-aux")
> > + (delete-file "po/Makefile.in.in") =20
>=20
> I'd move all of this to a separate snippet.
> These files can cause pain when building manually, too.
What's the policy about using patches, snippet or build phases? I was
recently asked to move code from snippet to build phase because it did
not address a security issue or remove non free or bundled components,
but I can't find anything documenting the choice we should make.