From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: Re: guile-bash updated source url Date: Fri, 03 May 2019 15:56:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87imurbq18.fsf@gnu.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hMYfX-0005Bc-FK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2019 09:56:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: (david larsson's message of "Sun, 28 Apr 2019 10:28:43 +0200 (CEST)") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: david.larsson@selfhosted.xyz Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hello David, david.larsson@selfhosted.xyz skribis: > This is my first contribution to guix and it's just a minor fix for > the guile-bash package which had an outdated source url. I was able to > retrieve the same revision of the package via the software-heritage > project's website and upload it to gitlab. Then I installed it > successfully via guix package -f my-guile-bash.scm using the gitlab > url, then copied it to the existing guile-xyz.scm in gnu/packages. [...] > --- a/gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/guile-xyz.scm > @@ -294,23 +294,21 @@ dictionary and suggesting spelling corrections.") > (license license:gpl3+))) >=20=20 > (define-public guile-bash > - ;; This project is currently retired. It was initially announced here: > - ;; . > - (let ((commit "1eabc563ca5692b3e08d84f1f0e6fd2283284469") > + (let ((commit "49099fe6a592aa3b8001e826b939869fe5811785") > (revision "0")) Why is the commit different? Looks like it=E2=80=99s more than just a mirr= or. If you made changes on top of the original code, that=E2=80=99s actually gr= eat. However, I=E2=80=99d prefer to first see a patch that simply changes the UR= L, not the commit and hash, and later updates to a different revision. Does that make sense? Andreas Enge skribis: > should the package not be retrieved automatically from Software Heritage > with the newest Guix API? And apart from that, will it be desirable to ke= ep > around an unmaintained software for which the source has disappeared? I think David is in fact suggesting that they may well be maintaining it, which is good news IMO. :-) Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.