Re: branch master updated: gnu: eudev: Use new package style.

[Christopher Baines]

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

> Am Montag, dem 29.05.2023 um 19:28 +0100 schrieb Christopher Baines:
>> 
>> guix-commits@gnu.org writes:
>> 
>> > This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script.
>> > 
>> > lilyp pushed a commit to branch master
>> > in repository guix.
>> > 
>> > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/master by this
>> > push:
>> >      new 7ff003bcbf gnu: eudev: Use new package style.
>> > 7ff003bcbf is described below
>> > 
>> > commit 7ff003bcbf388677c7c85b1709c58f41f84b9947
>> > Author: Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@lease-up.com>
>> > AuthorDate: Sun May 28 16:28:20 2023 -0700
>> > 
>> >     gnu: eudev: Use new package style.
>> >     
>> >     * gnu/packages/linux.scm (eudev)[arguments]: Convert to list of
>> > G-Expressions.
>> >     [native-inputs]: Drop labels.
>> >     
>> >     Signed-off-by: Liliana Marie Prikler
>> > <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> >  gnu/packages/linux.scm | 94 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>> > ------------
>> >  1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 49 deletions(-)
>> 
>> These changes do look to affect the derivation for eudev, and eudev
>> also has too many dependents to update on the master branch.
>> 
>> → guix refresh -l eudev
>> Building the following 1913 packages would ensure 4138 dependent
>> packages are rebuilt: ...
> Should I revert it?  Even with the mass rebuild, my intuition was that
> it'd be okay since it's no functional change and core-updates was
> dropped in favour of teams (with no particular team being responsible
> for udev afaik).

I think there is disagreement about this (including at least some
maintainers thinking differently), but I'm of the opinion that while
there has been discussion about stopping using core-updates, people
should follow the currently documented process, and for now that's still
using staging/core-updates [1].

1: 
https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Submitting-Patches.html#index-rebuild-scheduling-strategy

As for reverting it, I'm somewhat indifferent. I'm more interested in
the longer term cost of making changes like this than the temporary
drops in substitute availability.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature