GNU bug report logs - #74231
[PATCH] gnu: emacs-git-email: Update to 0.5.0.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 74231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Cayetano Santos <csantosb <at> inventati.org>
To: Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 74231 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#74231] QA review for 74231
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2024 16:13:37 +0100

>jeu. 07 nov. 2024 at 08:32, Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247 <at> gmail.com> wrote:

> Cayetano Santos via Guix-patches via <guix-patches <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> "The Elisp dependencies of Emacs packages are typically provided as
>> propagated-inputs when required at run time."
>>
>> See: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Emacs-Packages.html.
>
> Yes, please note however, that the dependencies in question were
> entirely optional.  The package doesn't have any "required" Elisp
> dependencies with the version of Emacs packaged in Guix.  More
> importantly, for some of these optional dependencies a user would only
> ever want to use one of them at a time (since it's intimately tied to
> their personal workflow and MUA etc.).

Fine with me, then.

>> To note that this is a completely different beast compared to previous
>> package (repo, version and mantainer).
>
> Yes.  Please let me know in case the commit message needs to be revised
> (it already does note that we are changing the referenced fork).  The
> previous fork hasn't been updated in a couple of years and had a number
> of bugs that have since been resolved in the updated fork.

To me, the open question goes well beyond this package.

Does guix package forks of code from a couple of years ago, without an
explicit acknowledgement between maintainers ? Additionally, this is a
second generation fork ...

I’d say, better bring the question to guix-devel, as this has large
implications. There must be a policy already around this point.

C.

Previous Next

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