GNU bug report logs -
#30641
Make 'guix refresh' to ignore "v" prefix in CPAN updater
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:58:04 +0100
with message-id <87fu5j6gpf.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#30641: Make 'guix refresh' to ignore "v" prefix in CPAN updater
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #30641,
regarding Make 'guix refresh' to ignore "v" prefix in CPAN updater
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
30641: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30641
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]
Hello Guix,
Previous discussion [1] talks about ‘guix refresh’ for CPAN updater
needs to ignore ‘v’ prefix in a ‘version’ field of a package record.
Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
> Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Sorry, I meant the opposite: we don't add the "v" prefix. It would be
>>> nice to make the CPAN updater aware of that.
>>
>> I'll close current bug report. Should we open a new one for CPAN
>> updater fix purpose?
Sounds good! I think the GitHub updater already ignores the "v" prefix
when comparing versions, so there might be some inspiration there.
>>>> I see a bunch of packages packages have "v" prefix:
>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:3599: (version "v2.49.1")
>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:7969: (version "v0.0.2")
>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:8697: (version "v0.2.13")
>>>> ./gnu/packages/networking.scm:778: (version "v0.003")
>>>> ./gnu/packages/mail.scm:1755: (version "v2.9.0")
>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>>
>>> Let's fix these :-)
>>
>> I guess it's better to do after a CPAN updater fix. WDYT?
No opinion either way :-)
Example of ‘guix refresh’ [2] wants to upgrade a package with the same
version because of ‘v’ prefix:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
/home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:108:2: licensecheck <at> 3.0.31: can be upgraded to v3.0.31
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30274#164
[2] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30274#161
Oleg.
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Hi,
Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>
>> Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Marius Bakke <mbakke <at> fastmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I meant the opposite: we don't add the "v" prefix. It would be
>>>> nice to make the CPAN updater aware of that.
>>>
>>> I'll close current bug report. Should we open a new one for CPAN
>>> updater fix purpose?
>
> Sounds good! I think the GitHub updater already ignores the "v" prefix
> when comparing versions, so there might be some inspiration there.
>
>>>>> I see a bunch of packages packages have "v" prefix:
>>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:3599: (version "v2.49.1")
>>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:7969: (version "v0.0.2")
>>>>> ./gnu/packages/perl.scm:8697: (version "v0.2.13")
>>>>> ./gnu/packages/networking.scm:778: (version "v0.003")
>>>>> ./gnu/packages/mail.scm:1755: (version "v2.9.0")
>>>>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>>>
>>>> Let's fix these :-)
>>>
>>> I guess it's better to do after a CPAN updater fix. WDYT?
>
> No opinion either way :-)
Could you fix these?
> Example of ‘guix refresh’ [2] wants to upgrade a package with the same
> version because of ‘v’ prefix:
>
> /home/natsu/src/guix-wip-licensecheck/gnu/packages/license.scm:108:2: licensecheck <at> 3.0.31: can be upgraded to v3.0.31
That turned out to be easy to fix, done in
b402f4ee34d35f9b934b5449d2cc419dc287895e.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
This bug report was last modified 7 years and 162 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.