[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#40105: closed ([PATCH] gnu: Add wol.)

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#40105: closed ([PATCH] gnu: Add wol.)
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 02:36:54 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:09:35 +0100
with message-id <20200328230935.7tqjyjazm55pv3fr@gravity>
and subject line Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add wol.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #40105,
regarding [PATCH] gnu: Add wol.
to be marked as done.

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

40105: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=40105
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Add wol. Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 16:04:51 +0100

I don't know if having multiple packages doing the same is OK or not.
Nor do I know if there are differences between this "wol" and the
already packaged "wakelan"...

I initially put it in networking whereas wakelen is in admin...

Anyways, I did the work, I tested it works by waking a suspended
odroidn2 SBC with it...

So here it is, tell me if it is redundant to the point of not being useful.

FTR, I packaged this because my initial guix search was with the words
wol and wakeonlan, which did not find anything relevant, whereas
searching with "wake" would have found it...

There are a few packages with WoL capability:


you can do it with netcat, etc...

Vincent Legoll

Attachment: 0001-gnu-Add-wol-v3.patch
Description: Text Data

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add wol. Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2020 00:09:35 +0100
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:57:42PM +0100, Vincent Legoll wrote:
> > > +    (description "Tool to send a @code{magic} packet to wake another host
> > > +on the network.  This must be enabled on the target host, usually in the
> > > +BIOS.")
> >
> > If I may ask, what's the rationale behind putting "magic" in a @code tag
> > here?
> I think I copied that desc from somewhere else (maybe nixos) and it had 
> quoting
> around, and then guix lint told me to use @code instead, I probably should 
> just
> have removed the quotes... Nothing more than that, you can remove them if
> you want to commit, or if you want I can resubmit without...

Sorry for taking a while to respond on this, but I pushed your patch as
commit 62b9ad19e3a6638f8e077753454fdf08ba586146 with two changes:
Firstly, I removed the @code tag as you suggested. Secondly, I removed
the references to `name' in the URL, since, as the contributing
guidelines suggest, the URL likely won't be valid if the name gets


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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