From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id GB7tHTO0gF9vJAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:04:19 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id IHjaGTO0gF+wHgAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:04:19 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 967A89404CA for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 19:04:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:49844 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxgd-0006L6-Ir for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:04:15 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41574) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxgS-0006Kv-GF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:04:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:52916) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxgQ-0007TB-Bw for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:04:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxgQ-0004KD-78 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:04:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#43852] [PATCH] gnu: Add riscv-openocd. Resent-From: Andreas Enge Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:04:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 43852 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Malte Frank Gerdes Cc: 43852@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 43852-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B43852.160227018416559 (code B ref 43852); Fri, 09 Oct 2020 19:04:02 +0000 Received: (at 43852) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Oct 2020 19:03:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:36229 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxfT-0004J1-Ns for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:03:04 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([185.233.100.1]:33658) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kQxfR-0004IZ-N8 for 43852@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 15:03:02 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF11A120D; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:02:59 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y1IikbBrkDBP; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:02:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jurong (unknown [IPv6:2001:910:103f::5fe]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D13671204; Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:02:58 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 21:02:57 +0200 From: Andreas Enge Message-ID: <20201009190257.GA2052@jurong> References: <86lfgh6bzy.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86lfgh6bzy.fsf@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -0.3 (/) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.51 X-TUID: rYvUK5PgF9cz Hello, since I am speaking as someone who does not know what these packages are about, please take what follows with a grain of salt. On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 10:02:09PM +0200, Malte Frank Gerdes wrote: > libjaylink ... is > ... available as a package. The available package ... > ... is too old ... > ... should I do something? Written like this, I would say you could try updating it, independently of your target package. Then the question is whether you break anything else: guix refresh -l libjaylink A single dependent package: openocd@0.10.0 So there already is an openocd, which maybe should be updated at the same time? And do you really need a new package, or could it be enough to provide more inputs or configuration flags to the existing one? Otherwise, how about inheriting? The name also is weird, see the section in the manual; we normally keep the upstream project name. Andreas