GNU bug report logs - #52075
[PATCH 0/4] gnu: alot: Update to 0.10.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: tracker <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#52075: closed ([PATCH 0/4] gnu: alot: Update to 0.10.)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 09:16:02 +0000

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

Your message dated Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:15:06 +0100
with message-id <87r1b2ot7p.fsf <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
and subject line Re: [bug#52075] [PATCH 3/4] gnu: Add python-notmuch2.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #52075,
regarding [PATCH 0/4] gnu: alot: Update to 0.10.
to be marked as done.

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


-- 
52075: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=52075
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

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

From: Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy <at> bioneland.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Tanguy Le Carrour <tanguy <at> bioneland.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] gnu: alot: Update to 0.10.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 10:57:33 +0100

Hi Guix,

In order to update `alot`, I had to change its inputs and add a new
variable: python-notmuch2.

Thanks for your time and reviews!

Tanguy Le Carrour (4):
  gnu: python-urwidtrees: Update to 1.0.3.
  gnu: notmuch: Update to 0.34.1.
  gnu: Add python-notmuch2.
  gnu: alot: Update to 0.10.

 gnu/packages/mail.scm       | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 gnu/packages/python-xyz.scm |  7 +++----
 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

-- 
2.34.0

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

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Jack Hill <jackhill <at> jackhill.us>
Cc: 52075-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Tanguy LE CARROUR <tanguy <at> bioneland.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#52075] [PATCH 3/4] gnu: Add python-notmuch2.
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2021 10:15:06 +0100

Hello,

Jack Hill <jackhill <at> jackhill.us> writes:

> It is possible that my concern was misplaced. My thinking was that if
> the two bindings were logically separate projects, rather than being 
> variations on the same code, we should keep them logically separate in
> Guix even if they are superficially similar. However, it might not be
> a logically separate project, and that might not be the right way to
> think about it anyway.

They are probably internally separate, but they do share superficial
parts. The Guix shortcut is only concerned about the latter, IMO.

> I don't have an objection to the version using inheritance.

I applied the patch set. Thanks to Tanguy for it, and to you for the
feedback!

> I am still curious in learning about the differences between the two
> packages if only for my own edification.

I cannot help here, unfortunately.

> Hopefully that clarifies, and sorry for adding noise to this review.

No problem! I think you raise an interesting question: does inheritance
in Guix imply strong internal dependency between the project inheriting
and the one being inherited?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Previous Next

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