Subject: Re: [bug#55891] [PATCH] gnu: Add iec16022

From: Remco van 't Veer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:57:38 +0200

Hi Maxime,

Sorry for the late reply, I was out camping.

2022/07/31 01:48, Maxime Devos:

> On 01-07-2022 08:58, Remco van 't Veer wrote:
>
>> Is there anything else I can do to keep this ticket moving?  Bug about
>> unchecked IO is reported and discussion about unchecked malloc has
>> stalled.
>
> You could search for an alternative solution that is acceptable to
> upstream, or if upstream completely refuses bugfixes, add some patch
> to the Guix package definition.  Also, I have not yet seen a v2 for
> resolving the other (non-upstream-code) issues I noted.

The patches I did submit upstream were not accepted and I agree with the
arguments of the maintainer so I won't add these to this package
definition.

  https://github.com/rdoeffinger/iec16022/pull/17

Also, I did make a v2 but forgot to cc you, sorry about that:

  https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=55891#20

Also did a v3 because the copyright line was missing (and failed to cc
you again):

  https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=55891#35

> Another method would be to help out with reviewing and fixing things
> (with other packages), this frees up time and is seen as a good act,
> hence making other people more inclined to help out with any remaining
> issues in your patches (including fixing issues such as those of the
> kind I have mentioned before, but also actually applying the patch and
> committing it).

That's a great tip and I will try and leap over my newby/shyness
feelings to get into that.  Getting feedback like yours has certainly
thought me a lot about what to look out for.  Thank you for your
feedback so far, also on the other patches I've submitted!

> You could also perform _all_ the checks in (guix)Submitting Patches
> (e.g., the bundling check, actually building it for other systems as
> well with QEMU, reproducibility check).

Just ran through them again and all seems to be fine.  I am not sure how
to prove I did.

>> Also note, this package is also being shipped by debian, archlinux,
>> fedora, and others.  Not that it matters but just to point out it's a
>> widely spread utility.
>
> I am not convinced by your implied method of persuasion by social
> pressure / argumentum ad populum. If it doesn't matter, why use it as
> an argument?

What I should have written is I am moving and application from
ubuntu/debian to guix and am missing this package.  We already use a
custom channel to make development possible but in doing to I was
tickled by (guix)Creating a Channel mentioning:

  Before publishing a channel, please consider contributing your package
  definitions to Guix proper (*note Contributing::).  Guix as a project
  is open to free software of all sorts, and packages in Guix proper are
  readily available to all Guix users and benefit from the project’s
  quality assurance process.

Cheers,
Remco