From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#31319: ghc-case-insensitive: Duplicate 'inputs' field. Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 12:02:48 +0200 Message-ID: <878t67wnjr.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87a7tka8ko.fsf@netris.org> <878t8swj9n.fsf@gnu.org> <87lgcrcrxk.fsf@netris.org> <871scliy9p.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60960) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fg5n5-0004En-DF for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 06:04:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fg5n0-0006Jo-E6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 06:04:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42513) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fg5n0-0006Ji-9w for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 06:04:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fg5mz-000298-Ve for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 06:04:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <871scliy9p.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:05:06 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: 31319@debbugs.gnu.org Ping! I=E2=80=99d really like to apply the patch you posted in along with the corresponding package fixes. I can do that if you want. Ludo=E2=80=99. ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > Hello Mark, > > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> It's true that it wouldn't change anything to simply remove those >> ignored duplicate field initializers. However, I thought it would be >> better to give people familiar with these packages an opportunity to >> investigate. Someone may have had a good reason for adding those >> inputs, even if they are not strictly needed for a successful build. >> >> Of course, at some point we should timeout on this. I would advocate >> commenting out the redundant duplicates instead of simply deleting them, >> along with a FIXME comment asking someone to investigate. We could also >> look in the commit history to find out who added those redundant inputs, >> and ask them directly. >> >> If you're impatient to get the duplicate field detection patch committed >> soon, I could implement these "timeout" measures in the next couple of >> days. > > I think we should go ahead now and mechanically fix packages with > duplicate fields, and apply the duplicate detection patch. > > Would you like to do that? > > Thanks, > Ludo=E2=80=99.