GNU bug report logs - #34378
update GNOME Planner to current

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#34378: closed (update GNOME Planner to current)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 18:56:01 +0000

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

Your message dated Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:55:14 -0400
with message-id <87lereg57x.fsf_-_ <at> gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#34378: update GNOME Planner to current
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #34378,
regarding update GNOME Planner to current
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)


-- 
34378: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34378
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Andrew Miloradovsky <andrew <at> interpretmath.pw>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: update GNOME Planner to current
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:54:08 +0000

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

The release is fairly old and contains prebuilt scripts.

[0001-gnu-gnome-planner-update-0.14.6-to-2019-02-08.patch (text/plain, attachment)]

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

[Message part 6 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Andrew Miloradovsky <andrew <at> interpretmath.pw>, 34378-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#34378: update GNOME Planner to current
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:55:14 -0400

Hello,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>>>> +  ;;; Warning:
>>>> +  ;;; The documentation generation mechanism is long broken. No Yelp yet.
>>>> +  ;;; So the output doesn't contain any docs, unlike the ancient release.
>>>> +  ;;; OTOH, that's probably not a huge concern, given the circumstances.
>>>> +  (let ((commit "fa7cbe309d5a705502ca46f808bcf78840804dbe")
>>>> +        (revision "2019-02-08"))
>>> How did you pick this particular commit?  In general we only package
>>> releases, unless there’s a compelling reason to build straight from the
>>> VCS.  Do you think that’s the case here?
>>
>> I picked that commit just because it was the most recent: the release is
>> expected to be very difficult to make, a lot of things need to be
>> fixed/modernized first, and there are not many people to review the
>> patches (one to be exact, AFAICT).
>>
>> I'm not sure there are really compelling reasons: most/all of the
>> changes made since the release are either about translations
>> (documentation generation is broken anyways), or fixes of deprecation
>> warnings (which otherwise would prevent it from building in Nixpkgs with
>> the default -Werror).
>
> OK.  I think it’s a case where we’d wait for upstream to push a new
> release, rather than guess which commit is appropriate to distribute.
>
> Thoughts?

Agreed.  Closing.

Maxim

Previous Next

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