[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#35846: closed ([PATCH] guix/import/cabal: handle b

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#35846: closed ([PATCH] guix/import/cabal: handle braced descriptions (fixes #35735))
Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 21:24:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 26 May 2019 23:23:27 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: [bug#35812] [PATCH] fix hackage cabal tests
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #35812,
regarding [PATCH] guix/import/cabal: handle braced descriptions (fixes #35735)
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

35812: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=35812
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] guix/import/cabal: handle braced descriptions (fixes #35735) Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 15:55:03 +0200
This fixes the cabal importer to deal with braced instead of layouted
properties. This is based on the current approach of lexing a whole
property as a token; it feels not ideal, but I’m not fluent enough in
guile (or the cabal format) to do better.

Compare https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=35735

Attachment: 0001-guix-import-cabal-parse-braced-description-propertie.patch
Description: Binary data

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [bug#35812] [PATCH] fix hackage cabal tests Date: Sun, 26 May 2019 23:23:27 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)

Robert Vollmert <address@hidden> skribis:

>> On 21. May 2019, at 16:48, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Robert Vollmert <address@hidden> skribis:
>>> Hackage cabal tests didn’t run independently due to memoization,
>>> and test-cabal-6 was failing.
>> I don’t think memoization can get in the way here: the argument list is
>> used as a key in the memoization hash table.  Thus, if you pass
>> different arguments, you get a cache miss and call the underlying
>> procedure.
>> Or am I missing something?
> I agree that memoization of a pure function shouldn’t have such effects,
> but my (limited) understanding is that hackage->guix-packages would
> cache import results by package name on the assumption that cabal
> files for the same package name don’t change between calls.

Oh, got it.

I pushed a variant of the patch as commit



--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]