bug#34378: closed (update GNOME Planner to current)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:55:14 -0400
with message-id <87lereg57x.fsf_-_@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#34378: update GNOME Planner to current
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #34378,
regarding update GNOME Planner to current
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
34378: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=34378
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems

--- Begin Message --- Subject: update GNOME Planner to current Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 01:54:08 +0000 User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0

The release is fairly old and contains prebuilt scripts.

0001-gnu-gnome-planner-update-0.14.6-to-2019-02-08.patch
Description: Text document

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

--- End Message ---

> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#34378: update GNOME Planner to current
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Tue, 23 Aug 2022 14:55:14 -0400
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.1 (gnu/linux)
>
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> >>>> +  ;;; Warning:
> >>>> +  ;;; The documentation generation mechanism is long broken. No Yelp yet.
> >>>> +  ;;; So the output doesn't contain any docs, unlike the ancient release.
> >>>> +  ;;; OTOH, that's probably not a huge concern, given the circumstances.
> >>>> +  (let ((commit "fa7cbe309d5a705502ca46f808bcf78840804dbe")
> >>>> +        (revision "2019-02-08"))
> >>> How did you pick this particular commit?  In general we only package
> >>> releases, unless there’s a compelling reason to build straight from the
> >>> VCS.  Do you think that’s the case here?
> >>
> >> I picked that commit just because it was the most recent: the release is
> >> expected to be very difficult to make, a lot of things need to be
> >> fixed/modernized first, and there are not many people to review the
> >> patches (one to be exact, AFAICT).
> >>
> >> I'm not sure there are really compelling reasons: most/all of the
> >> changes made since the release are either about translations
> >> (documentation generation is broken anyways), or fixes of deprecation
> >> warnings (which otherwise would prevent it from building in Nixpkgs with
> >> the default -Werror).
> >
> > OK.  I think it’s a case where we’d wait for upstream to push a new
> > release, rather than guess which commit is appropriate to distribute.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Agreed.  Closing.
>
> Maxim
>
>
> --- End Message ---