Subject: [bug#74135] [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Improve emacs-popwin definition.

From: Nicolas Goaziou <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2024 23:33:53 +0100

Hello,

Rostislav Svoboda <[email-masked]> writes:

>>     (arguments
>>      (list
>>       #:tests? #f ; requires an attached terminal
>>       ))
>>     (native-inputs
>>      (list emacs-ert-runner))
>>
>> "#:tests? #f" with a reason brings some valuable information. I simply suggest
>> to keep that line.
>
> If the default for #:tests? ever flips to #t, an explicit #:tests? #f
> if overlooked, would prevent tests from running, even though everyone
> might assume they are.

I disagree. When that Great Flip happens, explicit "#:tests? #f" will
prevent this package to fail because Guix cannot run its tests properly.

> Until such a flip occurs, this snippet simply adds to the list of
> native inputs without serving any real purpose, leading to unnecessary
> use of electricity and computational resources. If the original author
> intended to leave a note for future readers, a comment would be a more
> suitable approach.

Again, I have nothing against removing the native inputs in this package
definition. And I'm all for saving electricity and other resources.

> I'm sending you *two* patches: the first removes this redundancy, and
> the second updates the emacs-popwin package.

Since neither of them applies any of my suggestions, I'll consider that
we failed to reach any consensus. Having nothing more to suggest, I'll
let other reviewers chime in.

Regards,