From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkCIx-0008MX-A6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:45:42 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkCIZ-0001lV-IH for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:45:27 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41099) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dkCIZ-0001kj-7Z for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:45:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dkCIY-00021A-Qr for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 12:45:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#27977] [PATCH 1/2] services: herd: Fix matching ok responses from shepherd service. Resent-Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:44:52 +0100 From: Christopher Baines Message-ID: <20170822174452.3784d96c@cbaines.net> In-Reply-To: <87h8wz38hf.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170805222646.149cb45a@cbaines.net> <20170805213034.1012-1-mail@cbaines.net> <87h8wz38hf.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/H+i+m.duOEkMrc.quuv6mT1"; 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 27977@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/H+i+m.duOEkMrc.quuv6mT1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 17:52:44 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Probably this patch is better than reverting. >=20 > Thoughts? I had to apply that patch with --ignore-whitespace-change, as the code in the middle of (current-services) has been indented outside of that patch. I think I get what is going on. As far as I understand it, the (match results ((services _ ...) ... bit is equivilent to the use of first in the other procedures, which suggests to me that you could use first in (current-services)? I'm guessing that the only difference is that they will fail differently on the empty list? Also, I've successfully ran the memcached service test with this change, so there is no regression there which is good :) --Sig_/H+i+m.duOEkMrc.quuv6mT1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAlmcX4ZfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9Xc3bg/+IQFpklYoiy1N9S5YBorUu/3RPO9JfbUtSpa88bk81WPZ+xQdxKFGmSOB 8bOYF21Pu82BhSTJxpGWfYaTzO51tI8phW4S8Il4EJIbuly+s0Bs73kzaXKqdLO6 JLSSzXMSDrmWt+9/U6IAhxnFJboJcK6LOVN4dOjkRCZ3ueTnoJDG7JCItvW6if9e PANzSjuT5ygu3gWjlHkyEha+i7pnhaMXHYeKlzXZ8WfDC+MGW2z51VF736X3TRFk F9ovIJrz9TawgWWZRKDpJcZD1gYc+0izatwLCH15xph3YmG2s1FJrbbQjYu2z/m4 jLaaiKQJ57xNnkQ0+7fQZGF4o8GuP6dfb8m4e9a/Nzb6ri6OobwVGE1Jy2Jd/sfg FJSX6mmKgesfexCWHgfntPj13wLTbsEUkwKjAG6hwKnothRDrRMfpFeg11LAvCCh ZRe8cBvgw64jnd+PnuMfrB9+I4gIvcPQUU5idqv2MsyW5/+pKQPi6Se/YLtGcNAz utjYDNUjIdjPffhdYHTxXogdzaKXlPvlXro/HxFQfmshUP0i4OILtmN7d3S2hCNa cG0EpPrfU1Nk4YfRV6U+0h17Qrelbi2A5pb/5zaWdI4v8j/ERA7h55rYfB0Sd03o InS7tzWb5uuowfpMv4hl+Kdf9XN+0vh5YHQLunF6sz+cgVUzEus= =H9os -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/H+i+m.duOEkMrc.quuv6mT1--