GNU bug report logs - #78401
[PATCH] gnu: mupdf: Update to 1.26.0.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Divya Ranjan <divya <at> subvertising.org>

Date: Tue, 13 May 2025 02:54:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: moreinfo, patch

Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


Message #14 received at 78401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Divya Ranjan <divya <at> subvertising.org>
Cc: 78401 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#78401] [PATCH] gnu: mupdf: Update to 1.26.0., [PATCH] gnu:
 mupdf: Update to 1.26.0., [PATCH] gnu: mupdf: Modify #:make-flags
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 23:50:53 +0900
Hi Divya,

Divya Ranjan <divya <at> subvertising.org> writes:

[...]

>>> * gnu/packages/pdf.scm (mupdf): Update to 1.26.0.
>>
>> Various changes done here are not listed in the change log.  Please
>> consult other commits for examples or (info "(standards) Style of Change
>> Logs").
>
> Please find the updated patch with the indentation and commit message fixed.

Thanks for you efforts, but the change log is still missing many
entries.  It should list for example every input added or remove, every
configure flag added or removed, every phase added or removed, etc.  For
some examples, you can install the 'standards' package and consult (info
"(standards) Style of Change Logs"), or simply read examples through
'git log'.

While the whitespace is fixed in v2, it seems you ran the package
through 'guix style', which sadly is not always optimal and adds noise
to the diff.  Could you please keep this commit to just modify what's
needed?

Thanks for the explanations, it makes sense!  Could you please send a v3
with the cosmetic changes reverted and the change log expound again?

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim




This bug report was last modified 53 days ago.

Previous Next


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