Re: branch master updated: gnu: eudev: Use new package style.

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Montag, dem 29.05.2023 um 20:29 +0100 schrieb Christopher Baines:
> 
> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Am Montag, dem 29.05.2023 um 19:28 +0100 schrieb Christopher
> > Baines:
> > > 
> > > guix-commits@gnu.org writes:
> > > 
> > > > This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive
> > > > script.
> > > > 
> > > > lilyp pushed a commit to branch master
> > > > in repository guix.
> > > > 
> > > > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this
> > > > push:
> > > >      new 7ff003bcbf gnu: eudev: Use new package style.
> > > > 7ff003bcbf is described below
> > > > 
> > > > commit 7ff003bcbf388677c7c85b1709c58f41f84b9947
> > > > Author: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com>
> > > > AuthorDate: Sun May 28 16:28:20 2023 -0700
> > > > 
> > > >     gnu: eudev: Use new package style.
> > > >     
> > > >     * gnu/packages/linux.scm (eudev)[arguments]: Convert to
> > > > list of
> > > > G-Expressions.
> > > >     [native-inputs]: Drop labels.
> > > >     
> > > >     Signed-off-by: Liliana Marie Prikler
> > > > <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > > ----
> > > > ------------
> > > >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > These changes do look to affect the derivation for eudev, and
> > > eudev also has too many dependents to update on the master
> > > branch.
> > > 
> > > → guix refresh -l eudev
> > > Building the following 1913 packages would ensure 4138 dependent
> > > packages are rebuilt: ...
> > Should I revert it?  Even with the mass rebuild, my intuition was
> > that it'd be okay since it's no functional change and core-updates
> > was dropped in favour of teams (with no particular team being
> > responsible for udev afaik).
> 
> I think there is disagreement about this (including at least some
> maintainers thinking differently), but I'm of the opinion that while
> there has been discussion about stopping using core-updates, people
> should follow the currently documented process, and for now that's
> still using staging/core-updates [1].
Fair enough, I will refrain from pushing mass rebuilds directly to
master.

> 1:
> https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html#index-rebuild-scheduling-strategy
> 
> As for reverting it, I'm somewhat indifferent. I'm more interested in
> the longer term cost of making changes like this than the temporary
> drops in substitute availability.
You mean as a precedent for similar commits in the future or as a way
of involuntarily breaking other packages?  As already stated, I only
pushed the commit because I was quite sure that all rebuilds would
succeed.

Cheers