Subject: Re: [bug#77802] [PATCH] gnu: Add pay-respects.

From: Gabriel Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 13:08:21 -0300

>Thanks for the first patch using the new workflow :)

Glad I could be the first one to use it :)

>When describing a keybinding, use @kbd.  But it's actually a command, right?

Yes, since this is a CLI, sending "f" to the terminal isn't really
a keybind.

>"pressing" is not accurate here.

"inputting" f?

>Installing this package doesn't brings you a @command{thefuck} program, you may
>refer to it as @code{thefuck} package.

@code{} to refer to packages, got it.

>> +Additional support for instaling packages adding missing binaries is available.
>> +For Guix, a user just has to index their store with the @command{guix locate}
>> +command.  Additional support for Nix is also available, but that requires the
>> +instalation of @command{nix-index} from Nix for it to work (and it also has
>> +a lower priority, as package managers are checked in alphabetical order).")
>
>Can you rephrase these sentences without the "For Guix"?  Also Nix isn't
>relevant here I think?

I added Nix because we have it packaged, but I can remove this line.

>I think in practice committers should import dependencies again and check all
>added sources after applying the patch locally, so not sure about how to count
>copyright for this module.

So I should:

1. Import the patch, with something like mumi.
2. Run "guix import -i" again.
3. Check the source with "tar xf $(guix build --source pay-respects) -C /tmp"
4. Check the sources of the dependencies too.

Right?

>so not sure about how to count copyright for this module.

I think not adding copyright to this module could create a bigger
issue down the line, a similar example being what happend to .dir-locals.el:

<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/2025-02/msg02189.html>

And that is just V1 of the patch-more authors had to be added.

I'dd add the copyright so it doesn't create a similar issue down the
line, but you decide.

-- 
Gabriel Santos