From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: Add emacs-org-trello.
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 19:52:18 +0200
Message-ID: <8760ocwect.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87oa2887b1.fsf@gnu.org> <87bmy8glwz.fsf@elephly.net>
	<877f8udwha.fsf@gnu.org> <87shrhg9yb.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87insdmz3f.fsf@gmail.com> <87mvhpfx22.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87lgx8ddne.fsf@gmail.com> <8760ochbhc.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87twbwjuta.fsf@elephly.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45103)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1c0BJ6-0003go-GD
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:51:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1c0BJ5-0000cp-Vn
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:51:08 -0400
In-reply-to: <87twbwjuta.fsf@elephly.net>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>, Federico Beffa <beffa@fbengineering.ch>


Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> So, the only proper way to do it, is to manually add a test phase in
>> each package definition.  But then we still have to add a lot of
>> dependencies that are only needed to run the tests, and even then the
>> tests don't say much..  In the case of this package, the test functions
>> can't run because they use functions that aren't loaded yet, which
>> results in failures of the tests (while the package works just fine).
>>
>> Could I therefore, please, go ahead and push the patch without the
>> additional inputs for running tests?
>
> Yes, please do!  I was just curious.  Sorry for delaying this!
>
> ~~ Ricardo

Pushed in 36e5d1038 and ed8bc028f.

Thanks!