GNU bug report logs - #26718
Update hexchat to 2.12.4

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 26718 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 26718 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 19:22:56 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

here is a patch to update hexchat to 2.12.4.

[0001-gnu-hexchat-Update-to-2.12.4.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: julien <at> lepiller.eu, 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:19:49 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Julien,

On 30/04/17 19:22, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> here is a patch to update hexchat to 2.12.4.

...great! I was just doing the exact same thing. :-D

> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: hexchat: Update to 2.12.4.
>
> * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (hexchat): Update to 2.12.4.

The commit message must also mention new native-inputs, phases, etc.

>   (native-inputs `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
> -                   ("intltool" ,intltool)))
> +                   ("intltool" ,intltool)
> +                   ("autoconf" ,autoconf)
> +                   ("autoconf-archive" ,autoconf-archive)
> +                   ("automake" ,automake)
> +                   ("libtool" ,libtool)))

Even though these weren't sorted to begin with, it would be nice to do
so now.

> + (arguments
> +  `(#:phases
> +    (modify-phases %standard-phases
> +      (add-after 'unpack 'autogen

Nitpick: as the sources do contain an actual ‘autogen.sh’ — which we're
not calling — I'd just call this ‘bootstrap’ or so. Avoids confusion.

> +                 (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)

It looks like something went wrong with the indentation of this block.
The ‘(’ of ‘(lambda’ should be under the first ‘d’ of ‘(add-after’.

> + ;; these files are symlinks to /usr and cannot be used.

Another nitpick: full-line comment, so ‘;; These’.

> + (with-directory-excursion "m4"
> +   (for-each (lambda (f) (delete-file f))
> +             '("intltool.m4" "libtool.m4" "lt~obsolete.m4"
> +               "ltoptions.m4" "ltsugar.m4" "ltversion.m4")))
> + (delete-file-recursively "build-aux")
> + (delete-file "po/Makefile.in.in")

I'd move all of this to a separate snippet.
These files can cause pain when building manually, too.

> + (copy-file (string-append (assoc-ref inputs "intltool")
> +                           "/share/intltool/Makefile.in.in")
> +            "po/Makefile.in.in")

Ah, so this is what I was hunting down when your mail appeared.
Good catch!

I've taken the liberty to attach my patch[1] as well; it illustrates
some of the points mentioned above. Do with it what you will... :-)

Thanks!

T G-R

[1]: Audience question, somewhat: ‘guix lint’ complains that

  hexchat <at> 2.12.4: 'glib:bin' should probably be a native input

If no-one disagrees I'll dig up why & add it in a follow-up.

[0001-gnu-hexchat-Update-to-2.12.4.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:35:44 +0200

Le Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:19:49 +0200,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> a écrit :

> Julien,
> 
> [...]
> 
> > + (with-directory-excursion "m4"
> > +   (for-each (lambda (f) (delete-file f))
> > +             '("intltool.m4" "libtool.m4" "lt~obsolete.m4"
> > +               "ltoptions.m4" "ltsugar.m4" "ltversion.m4")))
> > + (delete-file-recursively "build-aux")
> > + (delete-file "po/Makefile.in.in")  
> 
> I'd move all of this to a separate snippet.
> These files can cause pain when building manually, too.
What's the policy about using patches, snippet or build phases? I was
recently asked to move code from snippet to build phase because it did
not address a security issue or remove non free or bundled components,
but I can't find anything documenting the choice we should make.

Message #14 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Cc: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 16:05:34 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 09:35:44PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> What's the policy about using patches, snippet or build phases? I was
> recently asked to move code from snippet to build phase because it did
> not address a security issue or remove non free or bundled components,
> but I can't find anything documenting the choice we should make.

I don't know if we have a real "policy"; here are my thoughts.

Guix is a useful tool for acquiring free software source code to be used
outside of Guix, with `guix build --source`. Origin snippets and patches
affect the result of `guix build --source`.

Snippets are necessary for removing non-free bits from what is provided
by `guix build --source`. Without this, I think we'd run afoul of the
free system distribution guidelines (FSDG).

Then there are changes we make in order to port software to Guix or make
other relatively unimportant changes. If they can be done with a
sed-like / regex substitution, we do them in build phases. It's helpful
to keep them in Scheme, and we don't want to distribute them via `guix
build --source`.

Patches are for things that are difficult / opaque to do with a sed-like
tool. They are applied to the result of `guix build --source`. I also
like using patches when copying changes from upstream; the provenance of
the change can be made clear in the patch annotation. For this reason,
most of the security updates I push use patches, even if they are
one-liners. Maybe these changes aren't always helpful for users of `guix
build --source`, but I try to limit them to important bug-fixes.

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts on this subject!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: leo <at> famulari.name, julien <at> lepiller.eu
Cc: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2017 23:11:24 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 30/04/17 22:05, Leo Famulari wrote:
> Then there are changes we make in order to port software to Guix or make
> other relatively unimportant changes. If they can be done with a
> sed-like / regex substitution, we do them in build phases. It's helpful
> to keep them in Scheme, and we don't want to distribute them via `guix
> build --source`.

Ah, I never considered this as a Guix-related fix: shipping symlinks to
/usr might happen to work on some (?) other systems, but it's obviously
not how autotools should be used.

We should serve users with a --source tarball that is either already
bootstrapped or ready to be, not in some dead-end third state.

The correct answer in either case is, of course: ‘it's a silly detail,
Tobias’.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #20 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Mon, 1 May 2017 09:52:36 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le Sun, 30 Apr 2017 23:11:24 +0200,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr> a écrit :

> On 30/04/17 22:05, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > Then there are changes we make in order to port software to Guix or
> > make other relatively unimportant changes. If they can be done with
> > a sed-like / regex substitution, we do them in build phases. It's
> > helpful to keep them in Scheme, and we don't want to distribute
> > them via `guix build --source`.  
> 
> Ah, I never considered this as a Guix-related fix: shipping symlinks
> to /usr might happen to work on some (?) other systems, but it's
> obviously not how autotools should be used.
> 
> We should serve users with a --source tarball that is either already
> bootstrapped or ready to be, not in some dead-end third state.
> 
> The correct answer in either case is, of course: ‘it's a silly detail,
> Tobias’.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> T G-R
> 
Here's the updated patch.

[0001-gnu-hexchat-Update-to-2.12.4.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #23 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Cc: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Fri, 5 May 2017 16:21:57 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:52:36AM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: hexchat: Update to 2.12.4.
> 
> * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (hexchat): Update to 2.12.4.

LGTM, thank you!

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #28 received at 26718-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 26718-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 10:22:29 +0200

Message #31 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: julien <at> lepiller.eu
Subject: Re: bug#26718: (no subject)
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 15:48:51 +0200

Hello Julien,

Please try to preserve the subject for clarity.  :-)

Ludo’.

Message #34 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
Cc: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 15:55:18 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:52:36AM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: hexchat: Update to 2.12.4.
> > 
> > * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (hexchat): Update to 2.12.4.
> 
> LGTM, thank you!

Sorry, I only checked it for style. It fails to build like this:

------
source is under 'hexchat-2.12.4'
;;; /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293: warning: possibly unbound variable `inputs'
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
 160: 14 [catch #t #<catch-closure 8c5b80> ...]
In unknown file:
   ?: 13 [apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 8c5b80>]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  66: 12 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 432: 11 [eval # #]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2412: 10 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 8e67c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>]
4089: 9 [#<procedure 8e67c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>]
1734: 8 [%start-stack load-stack #<procedure 8f69c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4080:10 ()>]
1739: 7 [#<procedure 8f86c0 ()>]
In unknown file:
   ?: 6 [primitive-load "/gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder"]
In ice-9/eval.scm:
 399: 5 [eval # #]
In system/base/compile.scm:
 254: 4 [compile (begin # # # ...) #:from scheme ...]
 182: 3 [lp (#<procedure objcode->value (x e opts)>) #<objcode 8dd020> ...]
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
2412: 2 [save-module-excursion #<procedure f924b0 at language/objcode/spec.scm:33:9 ()>]
In language/objcode/spec.scm:
  35: 1 [#<procedure f924b0 at language/objcode/spec.scm:33:9 ()>]
In /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:
   1: 0 [#<procedure f6fdc0 ()>]

/gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293: In procedure #<procedure f6fdc0 ()>:
/gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293: In procedure module-lookup: Unbound variable: inputs
builder for `/gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv' failed with exit code 1
@ build-failed /gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv - 1 builder for `/gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv' failed with exit code 1
cannot build derivation `/gnu/store/g6jrq9a0bj4za1yg0fcx9ni7nkwlm91r-hexchat-2.12.4.drv': 1 dependencies couldn't be built
guix build: error: build failed: build of `/gnu/store/g6jrq9a0bj4za1yg0fcx9ni7nkwlm91r-hexchat-2.12.4.drv' failed
------

So, I reverted it with commit 2f0ad2a4232549a3bbb43565fa3b82a6c85e59a8.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #37 received at 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Julien Lepiller <julien <at> lepiller.eu>
To: 26718 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sat, 6 May 2017 23:08:34 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le Sat, 6 May 2017 15:55:18 -0400,
Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name> a écrit :

> On Fri, May 05, 2017 at 04:21:57PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 09:52:36AM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:  
> > > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: hexchat: Update to 2.12.4.
> > > 
> > > * gnu/packages/messaging.scm (hexchat): Update to 2.12.4.  
> > 
> > LGTM, thank you!  
> 
> Sorry, I only checked it for style. It fails to build like this:
> 
> ------
> source is under 'hexchat-2.12.4'
> ;;; /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293:
> warning: possibly unbound variable `inputs' Backtrace:
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>  160: 14 [catch #t #<catch-closure 8c5b80> ...]
> In unknown file:
>    ?: 13 [apply-smob/1 #<catch-closure 8c5b80>]
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>   66: 12 [call-with-prompt prompt0 ...]
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>  432: 11 [eval # #]
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
> 2412: 10 [save-module-excursion #<procedure 8e67c0 at
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>] 4089: 9 [#<procedure 8e67c0 at
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:4084:3 ()>] 1734: 8 [%start-stack load-stack
> #<procedure 8f69c0 at ice-9/boot-9.scm:4080:10 ()>] 1739: 7
> [#<procedure 8f86c0 ()>] In unknown file:
>    ?: 6 [primitive-load
> "/gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder"]
> In ice-9/eval.scm: 399: 5 [eval # #]
> In system/base/compile.scm:
>  254: 4 [compile (begin # # # ...) #:from scheme ...]
>  182: 3 [lp (#<procedure objcode->value (x e opts)>) #<objcode
> 8dd020> ...] In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
> 2412: 2 [save-module-excursion #<procedure f924b0 at
> language/objcode/spec.scm:33:9 ()>] In language/objcode/spec.scm:
>   35: 1 [#<procedure f924b0 at language/objcode/spec.scm:33:9 ()>]
> In /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:
>    1: 0 [#<procedure f6fdc0 ()>]
> 
> /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293:
> In procedure #<procedure f6fdc0
> ()>: /gnu/store/19lkrck1844idbcfq6ajzr0akmr8rshj-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz-builder:1:2293:
> In procedure module-lookup: Unbound variable: inputs builder for
> `/gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv'
> failed with exit code 1 @
> build-failed /gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv
> - 1 builder for
> `/gnu/store/gp1jrrhk8hd46ji2gciyjjpgxr9lhfxc-hexchat-2.12.4.tar.xz.drv'
> failed with exit code 1 cannot build derivation
> `/gnu/store/g6jrq9a0bj4za1yg0fcx9ni7nkwlm91r-hexchat-2.12.4.drv': 1
> dependencies couldn't be built guix build: error: build failed: build
> of `/gnu/store/g6jrq9a0bj4za1yg0fcx9ni7nkwlm91r-hexchat-2.12.4.drv'
> failed ------
> 
> So, I reverted it with commit
> 2f0ad2a4232549a3bbb43565fa3b82a6c85e59a8.

Indeed, I made a mistake here... So here is a patch that should work
(tested).

[0001-gnu-hexchat-Update-to-2.12.4.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #40 received at 26718-close <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>
To: julien <at> lepiller.eu, 26718-close <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#26718: Update hexchat to 2.12.4
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 00:02:31 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Julien,

On 06/05/17 23:08, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> Indeed, I made a mistake here... So here is a patch that should work
> (tested).

Pushed. Thanks!

Kind regards,

T G-R

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.