[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug#55903] [bug#56939] [PATCH 31/41] gnu: Add go-github-com-google-shle

From: Maxime Devos
Subject: [bug#55903] [bug#56939] [PATCH 31/41] gnu: Add go-github-com-google-shlex.
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 17:38:34 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0

On 03-08-2022 14:04, ( via Guix-patches via wrote:

+    (arguments
+     (list #:import-path ""
+           ;; XXX: Tests require you to download fixtures from the Internet.
+           ;; See <>.
+           #:tests? #f))
+    (propagated-inputs (list notmuch))
Can we just substitute* in the appropriate library reference or whatever is the Go equivalent instead of propagating?  Maybe in in configList.go, we can replace -lnotmuch by -l/gnu/store/.../ or add a -L/gnu/store/... there?

From: "(unmatched-parenthesis" <>

* gnu/packages/golang.scm (go-github-com-google-shlex): New variable.
 gnu/packages/golang.scm | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/gnu/packages/golang.scm b/gnu/packages/golang.scm
index fd2335b61a..9959dd118c 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/golang.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/golang.scm
@@ -10720,3 +10720,26 @@ (define-public go-github-com-lithammer-fuzzysearch
      "A speedy fuzzy matching package for Go inspired by the _javascript_
 library bevacqua/fuzzysearch.")
     (license license:expat)))
+(define-public go-github-com-google-shlex
+  (package
+    (name "go-github-com-google-shlex")
+    (version "0.0.0-20191202100458-e7afc7fbc510")

Why has the commit and description been changed since <>? The change in synopsis seems good to me though.

Also, there are multiple patches adding go-github-com-google-shlex now -- as I've asked in the past, can we stop doing that, or at least add a pointer to the previous version to avoid double work for reviewers? Likewise for:

Like, if I would properly review (including checking the source code) this patch series and didn't know some of those were reviewed previously, then I would have to do the review again even though that's double work better spent elsewhere and if I later discover these were actually reviewed previously, that doesn't sound good for motivation to me.

And even though I know some of those have been submitted and reviewed previously, I don't remember which ones exactly and to which degree (only superficial checks like checking synopsis, description and #:tests?, or also source code checks, ...), so if I were to review this (*), I would have to look up the old patches and reviews, see which ones were reviewed previously and to what degree, look if changes have been made (e.g. changing which commit to use) that invalidated the review, ..., which is not motivating to me.

(*) To be clear, I consider it unlikely for me to seriously review Go stuff in the future, as the Go world is full of forks that make no attempt to contribute back to upstream, or many independent implementations (see e.g. terminfo and shlex) where a single or maybe two implementations would suffice, often there's a lack of attempting backwards compatibility and version numbers are often just 0.0.0, ...


Attachment: OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

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