GNU bug report logs - #50309
[PATCH 0/5] New version of beets

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#50309: closed ([PATCH 0/5] New version of beets)
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2021 13:11:01 +0000

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

Your message dated Sat, 4 Sep 2021 15:10:08 +0200
with message-id <YTNwMNPrrf3fLvQo <at> noor.fritz.box>
and subject line Re: [bug#50309] [PATCH 0/5] New version of beets
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #50309,
regarding [PATCH 0/5] New version of beets
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
50309: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=50309
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Simon Streit <simon <at> netpanic.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] New version of beets
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:49:29 +0200

Hello!

Here a little collection of patches to update beets.  Beets-bandcamp is
included in this series although it is not a dependency of beets.  I
merely stumbled across it being not up to date while checking version
numbers.

This update of beets has long been waited for.  Hence there was another
package (beets-next) with a more recent checkout so that it would be
possible to have a more recent version than 1.4.9.  With 1.5.0 I believe
that we do not need beets-next anymore.  Thus I removed it.  It was also
possible to remove some patches too.

Now to beets.  Since my skills with packaging are not quite advanced
yet, I did try my best to modify the definition to accommodate the new
version.  Along the way, I noticed -- even with v1.4.9 -- beets would
not find the fpcalc. Fpcalc is part of chromaprint and while this
package is an optional dependency, I put it into propagated-inputs and
solved this issue somehow.

But I'm still not quite sure if the inputs are done in the right way?
The inputs from “guix import pypi beets” look very different from the
package definition that was laid out before.  This suggestion from
import would fail if I pushed it to my local repository and pulled.  I
left it as it is for the time being.

Hope this is acceptable. 


Kind regards,
Simon


Simon Streit (5):
  gnu: python-confuse: Update to 1.5.0.
  gnu: python-pyacoustid: Update to 1.2.1.
  gnu: python-mediafile: Update to 0.7.0.
  gnu: beets-bandcamp: Update to 0.1.4.
  gnu: beets: Update to 1.5.0.

 gnu/packages/mp3.scm                          |   7 +-
 gnu/packages/music.scm                        | 119 ++++++------------
 .../patches/beets-werkzeug-compat.patch       |  18 ---
 .../patches/python-mediafile-wavpack.patch    |  57 ---------
 gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm                   |   7 +-
 5 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 164 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/beets-werkzeug-compat.patch
 delete mode 100644 gnu/packages/patches/python-mediafile-wavpack.patch

--
2.33.0

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Lars-Dominik Braun <lars <at> 6xq.net>
To: Simon Streit <simon <at> netpanic.org>
Cc: 50309-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#50309] [PATCH 0/5] New version of beets
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2021 15:10:08 +0200

Hi,

I pushed pushed this patch set with modifications and additions as
8ceb7651c2aff73644a49c1d72fe8b63948f0240 and following.

Cheers,
Lars

Previous Next

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