From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id UGJ+BtXYLF9EMgAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:30:13 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id QN5mAtXYLF+2WQAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:30:13 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BB429403EC for ; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 04:30:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:51718 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u1B-0002Vh-Nd for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:30:09 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60522) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u14-0002VY-WD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:30:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:43890) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u14-0000TO-MD for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:30:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u14-0008A6-FG for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:30:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#42736] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-doom-themes: Update to 2.1.6-5. Resent-From: Jack Hill Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:30:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 42736 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Brett Gilio Cc: 42736@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 42736-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B42736.159677454431286 (code B ref 42736); Fri, 07 Aug 2020 04:30:02 +0000 Received: (at 42736) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Aug 2020 04:29:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55436 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u08-00088Y-2a for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:29:04 -0400 Received: from minsky.hcoop.net ([104.248.1.95]:49770) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1k3u05-000881-5b for 42736@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:29:03 -0400 Received: from marsh.hcoop.net ([45.55.52.66]) by minsky.hcoop.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1k3tzz-0004kb-Qw; Fri, 07 Aug 2020 00:28:55 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 00:28:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Jack Hill X-X-Sender: jackhill@marsh.hcoop.net In-Reply-To: <878serjfdk.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: References: <20200807031749.27160-1-jackhill@jackhill.us> <878serjfdk.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -1.01 X-TUID: 6NjYW/2r60l+ On Thu, 6 Aug 2020, Brett Gilio wrote: > > Hey Jack, > > Thanks for taking time to revise this package. When I originally wrote > it I made notice to the fact that some elisp bytecompilations were > failing or not behaving appropriately. Since then I am pretty sure > hlissner has disabled the bytecompilation completely? Could you review > this for me, and if true please revise the appropriate arguments. If you > aren't sure what I am talking about, please let me know. Brett, I saw your lovely comment, but in my excitement that the update solved the problem I was having with Emacs 27 compatibility, I didn't think too hard about it. I believe that I understand what you're asking. I'll take a look tomorrow to see if we should change the package definition in light of upstream changes. If I get stuck, I'll be sure to let you know. Best, Jack