From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id QKcLKwDYK2IUawAAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 00:15:12 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id pvjNIwDYK2InUQAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 00:15:12 +0100 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 D39453457E for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 00:15:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:57616 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoTW-0006Ul-Nc for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:15:10 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoTO-0006Uc-U3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:15:02 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44787) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoTO-0004Cz-LK for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:15:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoTO-0000NS-Dt for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:15:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#54252] [PATCH] gnu: lemonbar: Update to 1.4. Resent-From: Nicolas Goaziou Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2022 23:15:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 54252 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Maxime Devos Cc: 54252@debbugs.gnu.org, Jai Vetrivelan , Maxim Cournoyer Received: via spool by 54252-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B54252.16470404891411 (code B ref 54252); Fri, 11 Mar 2022 23:15:02 +0000 Received: (at 54252) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 Mar 2022 23:14:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38683 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoTA-0000Mg-QG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:14:49 -0500 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:41335) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1nSoT8-0000MP-2d for 54252@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 18:14:47 -0500 Received: (Authenticated sender: admin@nicolasgoaziou.fr) by mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9EF1560003; Fri, 11 Mar 2022 23:14:38 +0000 (UTC) From: Nicolas Goaziou References: <87k0d953yg.fsf@gmail.com> <87bkyd48ny.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87y21g3n6r.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <8735joti6b.fsf@gmail.com> <87lexg2lbx.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <8e6940de1f48cc2f285f52c0ee1d4ec7f9f7ae7c.camel@telenet.be> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 00:14:37 +0100 In-Reply-To: <8e6940de1f48cc2f285f52c0ee1d4ec7f9f7ae7c.camel@telenet.be> (Maxime Devos's message of "Fri, 11 Mar 2022 23:30:23 +0100") Message-ID: <874k44ytcy.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list 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-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1647040511; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post; bh=G3nOWXyAB9QpjNcxgwkkPlmiaLR99N3l0eQoziAkFLQ=; b=gpzSty3YEzb0nzSF2eTxevN1ncsiwuRtQoLV3qtP2nDb8pY9hLvdC1u5vPzXQKWb254YHt SZ17hQMbSoB6VEejs0JAU56lbGhvUYVQI/ruyluO/Blju7myalkDI6a+JOpiLjj1t78XZP aq/2V6m6dcgv8aa4c9VH4rWbYxIr5U2ETB3SxAhQ3VRLCvG5N6tuUzOjKXpp0XqYrLzsUT ds8U/asUySnxPanICZTh6/OI3vbRf1USD9q83kAh4SKT7k/Go7IMmb4J7okSeRYyOENZjj 2RrrYTORsfy54zG41T4D2FbksAd41UEGMi/SwcraQD319LVgBPichP6iZYM/Ag== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1647040511; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=A3oGE6x59bsrX4KmtdF61+tVT951uw9zz08AgEcfkCKmxuuNg4NZJ677MuPfWGMClfqpoi DU7YK8ljxmfBlxFijfViBDL84ukJnExjHUxtizfgvOUJgW5r99wfjiqNaZZ9wvL84R96fz TmlQDaCRgB33F38JPSk9PcH25xK/rGPPq5LKw+iDdddKp32DhFrQnahIxkocuP1JQh435q KIXhQlRg4YUz4dVAst8wLWBcx8iAOxoR0r6sKdXcnBLUOa2hM0j13HWej2ZIiO94VHf2xg PSNwWWwKN9VtPiC2SZ+D8wfIJPuzk//oZ0eKxGYK/2+QN7Hn8hKvAPbly01Wxw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.29 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: D39453457E X-Spam-Score: -2.29 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: fQ/6Zvangwaz Hello, Maxime Devos writes: > However, this seems a bit irrelevant to the issue of the patch being > committed before this issue was reported -- basically, I make the > following assumptions: > > 1. there is a known issue with the package > 2. known issues have to be reported upstream in order for a package > to be included in Guix I understand these are your assumptions, but I don't see anything like that in the packaging guidelines. It may be our duty to report them, as Maxime Cournoyer wrote, but I don't see this as a blocker either. Besides, sorry for being bold, but Jai Vetrivelan is not packaging anything here; they are just bumping a version. The issue with the package itself is not really of their concern. > 3. the packager did not report the issue > 4. a reviewer or the committer can report the issue Anyone can.=20 As a data point, even if I understand the importance of working with upstream, I consider making that report is way above my pay grade. > If no-one reported the issue, then from (1) and (2) it follows that the > package cannot (yet) be included in Guix. Yes, according to your own assumptions, this is correct. > Now, when can it be included in Guix? It is already included: this is a version bump. I assume you're talking about a hypothetical new package. > My conclusion is: to include a package in Guix, the issue must first be > reported upstream. So your conclusion is your initial assumption? Sorry, but you lost me. > Additionally, if the packager did not report the > issue, that does not override the (undocumented?) requirement; if the > packager did not report it, that merely implies the reviewers or > committer will have to do it.=20 If they have the will, the time, and the skill to do so, absolutely. However, please remember everyone=E2=80=94including you, of course=E2=80=94= is doing their best, as a benevolent. In this context, I consider "will have to" to be strong words. This is all personal but I don't think putting more pressure on committers=E2=80=94or reviewers for that matter=E2=80=94would be doing any = good to the patch reviewing process, either. Regards, --=20 Nicolas Goaziou