From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47745) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnWe9-0006KQ-RJ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:05:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnWe6-0001DU-ME for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:05:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:57722) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dnWe6-0001Cq-Iy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:05:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dnWe6-0002c7-3I for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 31 Aug 2017 17:05:02 -0400 Subject: bug#28273: [PATCH] gnu: Fix current-guix. Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 22:04:21 +0100 From: Christopher Baines Message-ID: <20170831220421.5ba1287c@cbaines.net> In-Reply-To: <87val3ri36.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170829064930.19849-1-mail@cbaines.net> <87val3ri36.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/Iu8/r5IjtX6K59udHNXgJjG"; 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: 28273-done@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/Iu8/r5IjtX6K59udHNXgJjG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 15:18:37 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Christopher Baines skribis: >=20 > > Without this change, I get errors like: > > ERROR: In procedure string-drop: > > ERROR: Value out of range 0 to 35: 51 > > > > * gnu/packages/package-management.scm (current-guix): Pass exactly > > the same path to git-predicate and local-file, to ensure that the > > select? function is compatible. =20 >=20 > Good catch, LGTM. Great, I've merged this now. > I think that fundamentally, we should arrange for =E2=80=98git-predicate= =E2=80=99 to > not do any string prefix comparison. That=E2=80=99s bound to fail. If we > could somehow restrict it to comparing inode numbers, that=E2=80=99d be > perfect. Hmm, yeah, that might work well... I think the structure would simplify to: - taking the list of files, creating a list of directories (rather than a tree) - combining these lists - finding each inode for every file and directory The predicate could then check if the provided inode is known, without switching on the type as it does at the moment. I'll put it on my list of things to look at :) --Sig_/Iu8/r5IjtX6K59udHNXgJjG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQKTBAEBCgB9FiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAlmoedVfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcACgkQXiijOwuE 9XfGCw//ej1ePV0FXY74v0kH6LbzRPXNTdMaNCeKthzV0GZEpb6D1F9liHJtsiQf QOMpFlRvYxBuv9SfQXLWsW7gaPHA21oHiZMzzbD6Fxmbm0R62F7E13siFVqkBnis K4PP2Nfcy1As4aX5Y+j+t/OPQxageowJzGmWOKpGdg6DvKeUjAj1D1wufRbh5Lpd 3aHZrwa/yylwTefor7GOyEhXPzKDbNCyppWts4FMccKtBedpPs7qF4AeYcTy1Bks Mc9c4HB4TMDNrqon4IauI43VS7FNySItR92ObpdQBchoqb4C0241+KMmBCg6ng8A 2Sv5fGEvyD+Vz+1C4eShVTylRLe8kGJGI5pXnDIW07dLPQLGUT0XGZIxu5mLVV7j 2BYcVhbI9MJNDrN5J0HxCnkqsMOBAZMlx02xGVoap1WSpDvDA6RDi5y9noQm/237 Y8cyl631pHgIoBvIyb5i4gAxtuMnvnU7FBXEXAGPTXx2A1BTvIxTvgfrVeVqGnyY fVWImAVme6LUNEpJg5Kg1WMXG3be5U5vrNG6Gw1NpSO/FZTv1Uy9C87NUinDTGX0 g1cPW7ZdEsFusPc8G6mjDj2/Qa6SJk/dvluPjGDaGGHd9U3yVUrvQ0uNYUuIkofZ CjYDUwNMSqAkh6flV7XzOL+sXdeSk/ooxqljqQKZBs0/IWbCnyg= =01KS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Iu8/r5IjtX6K59udHNXgJjG--