GNU bug report logs - #54252
[PATCH] gnu: lemonbar: Update to 1.4.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
To: Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
Cc: 54252 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Jai Vetrivelan <jaivetrivelan <at> gmail.com>, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#54252] [PATCH] gnu: lemonbar: Update to 1.4.
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 00:14:37 +0100

Hello,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be> writes:

> However, this seems a bit irrelevant to the issue of the patch being
> committed before this issue was reported -- basically, I make the
> following assumptions:
>
>   1. there is a known issue with the package
>   2. known issues have to be reported upstream in order for a package
>      to be included in Guix

I understand these are your assumptions, but I don't see anything like
that in the packaging guidelines. It may be our duty to report them, as
Maxime Cournoyer wrote, but I don't see this as a blocker either.

Besides, sorry for being bold, but Jai Vetrivelan is not packaging
anything here; they are just bumping a version. The issue with the
package itself is not really of their concern.

>   3. the packager did not report the issue
>   4. a reviewer or the committer can report the issue

Anyone can. 

As a data point, even if I understand the importance of working with
upstream, I consider making that report is way above my pay grade.

> If no-one reported the issue, then from (1) and (2) it follows that the
> package cannot (yet) be included in Guix.

Yes, according to your own assumptions, this is correct.

> Now, when can it be included in Guix?

It is already included: this is a version bump. I assume you're talking
about a hypothetical new package.

> My conclusion is: to include a package in Guix, the issue must first be
> reported upstream.

So your conclusion is your initial assumption? Sorry, but you lost me.

> Additionally, if the packager did not report the
> issue, that does not override the (undocumented?) requirement; if the
> packager did not report it, that merely implies the reviewers or
> committer will have to do it. 

If they have the will, the time, and the skill to do so, absolutely.

However, please remember everyone—including you, of course—is doing
their best, as a benevolent. In this context, I consider "will have to"
to be strong words.

This is all personal but I don't think putting more pressure on
committers—or reviewers for that matter—would be doing any good to the
patch reviewing process, either.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Previous Next

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