Re: gnumaint changes

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hello Mike,

Mike Gerwitz <mtg@gnu.org> skribis:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 21:40:19 -0400, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>> I'll have to look at what guix/gnu-maintenance.scm does, but:
>
> [...]
>
>> Rather than get rid of gnupackages.txt completely, I wrote a script last
>> week to generate it from rec/gnupackages.rec.  The formats are largely
>> the same---it's possible that you can use the recfile directly.
>> However, if you still need the old format, just run
>> `make gnupackages.txt`.
>
> Ah, I see, it fetches that single file over HTTP.  Certainly running
> `make` (or the underlying gawk script) is undesirable in that situation.
>
> Can someone with more knowledge of what this is used for run a couple of
> tests to see what is broken if you use rec/gnupackages.rec instead?
> Worst case, I can commit gnupackages.txt until the script can be
> updated, but I'd prefer to keep generated files out of the repository.
>
> pkgblurbs.txt has also been replaced by rec/pkgblurbs.rec.

Commit daf76c7cd54df428abc28d490747c7f83a844df0 changes
gnu-maintenance.scm to use the .rec files.  Thanks for the heads-up.

> If anyone here also knows of any other external systems pulling from
> womb, please lmk.  I wasn't aware that anyone outside of maintainers@
> used that repo, tbh.

It’s used by ‘guix import gnu’ and ‘guix lint -c gnu-descriptions’
currently.

It’d be nice if synopses and descriptions in the Womb could contain
Texinfo markup.

In fact, perhaps it’d make sense to reverse the roles, i.e., have the
Womb take (some of its) descriptions from Guix?

Ludo’.