[bug#42615] [PATCH] guix: lint: Ignore unsupported source URL’s.

[bug#42615] [PATCH] guix: lint: Ignore unsupported source URL’s.

[Lars-Dominik Braun]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 281 bytes --]

Hi,

in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/42306 I noticed git:// URI’s in source
urls (see package nfs4-acl-tools) cause `guix lint` to fail currently. Attached
is a patch that fixes the issue, but I’m not sure that’s the “correct” way to
do it.

Cheers,
Lars


[-- Attachment #1.2: 0001-guix-lint-Ignore-unsupported-source-URL-s.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 988 bytes --]

From 23ff102a3883a8dedf911892c57a040f6a9e36b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Lars-Dominik Braun <ldb@leibniz-psychology.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:01:39 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?guix:=20lint:=20Ignore=20unsupported=20source?=
 =?UTF-8?q?=20URL=E2=80=99s.?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

* guix/lint.scm (check-source): Add match case for #f.
---
 guix/lint.scm | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/guix/lint.scm b/guix/lint.scm
index 8a55f3e744..71ce931964 100644
--- a/guix/lint.scm
+++ b/guix/lint.scm
@@ -794,6 +794,9 @@ descriptions maintained upstream."
            (#t
             ;; We found a working URL, so stop right away.
             '())
+           (#f
+            ;; Unsupported URL or other error, skip.
+            (loop rest warnings))
            ((? lint-warning? warning)
             (loop rest (cons warning warnings))))))))
 
-- 
2.20.1


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 659 bytes --]

bug#42615: [PATCH] guix: lint: Ignore unsupported source URL’s.

[Mathieu Othacehe]

Hello,

> in https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/42306 I noticed git:// URI’s in source
> urls (see package nfs4-acl-tools) cause `guix lint` to fail currently. Attached
> is a patch that fixes the issue, but I’m not sure that’s the “correct” way to
> do it.

I considered adding a warning saying that URI validation failed, but
I think it can be misleading and let the user think that something is
wrong with the package definition.

Anyway looks fine, pushed!

Thanks,

Mathieu