Subject: bug#27297: closed (Re: bug#27297: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:19:03 +0000

Your bug report

#27297: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.

which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
27297: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=27297
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#27297: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.
From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Björn Höfling <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:18:11 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi Björn,

Björn Höfling <[email-masked]> skribis:

> From 82405dba978d051eb5ae9614a88f8a07f5fe1e85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: =?UTF-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20H=C3=B6fling?=
>  <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:57:55 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Correct function name.

Good catch… though the just-pushed commit
c08ea55e7ec25261e4596bf6726a83c1ed056b94 introduces
‘specifications->manifest’ for this particular use case.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Subject: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.
From: Björn Höfling <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2017 17:15:24 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

From 82405dba978d051eb5ae9614a88f8a07f5fe1e85 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Bj=C3=B6rn=20H=C3=B6fling?=
 <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2017 08:57:55 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Correction of function name.

* doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package): Correct function name.
---
 doc/guix.texi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index a5b7875..0b2aed2 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -1724,7 +1724,7 @@ In this example we have to know which modules
define the @code{emacs} and @code{guile-2.0} variables to provide the
right @code{use-package-modules} line, which can be cumbersome.  We can
 instead provide regular package specifications and let
-@code{specification->package-output} look up the corresponding package
+@code{specification->package+output} look up the corresponding package
 objects, like this:
 
 @example
-- 
2.7.4