GNU bug report logs - #65280
[PATCH 00/26] Refresh Qt 6 packages

Previous Next

Full log

Message #278 received at 65280 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
Cc: 65280 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#65280] [PATCH 01/26] gnu: qt: Revert to use individual
 versions instead of %qt5-version.
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:45:40 -0400

Hi Andreas!

Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Am Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:29:11AM -0400 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
>> Rationale: using a variable for the version field currently hinders automatic
>> upgrades via 'guix refresh':
>>    qtbase: no `version' field in source; skipping
>
> could this not be considered a bug in "guix refresh"? For updating, I find
> it much clearer to keep the version in one place and then bump it with a
> one-line commit to try a comprehensive upgrade.

We can teach 'guix refresh' to do anything, with some efforts :-).  I'm
a bit split on the question; on one hand, you can't really update Qt
components in a piece meal fashion (I wouldn't expect that to work, but
I haven't tried).  On the other hand, it would lead to a very large
commit that would be dense to review and stray away from our one package
change / one commit convention, which benefits from existing tooling
such as 'guix refresh' as well as other local hacks I use [0].

So I guess I'm in favor of the status quo, but would welcome a more
capable 'guix refresh' nonetheless.

[0]  https://notabug.org/apteryx/guix-api-examples/src/master/command-line-hacks.

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim

Previous Next

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