| Message ID | 20200127235121.14924-1-mab@gnu.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [bug#39321] gnu: Add emacs-unkillable-scratch. | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| cbaines/applying patch | fail | View Laminar job |
Hello, Amin Bandali <mab@gnu.org> writes: > * gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm (emacs-unkillable-scratch): New variable. Thank you. > +(define-public emacs-unkillable-scratch > + (let ((commit "b24c2a760529833f230c14cb02ff6e7ec92288ab") > + (revision "0")) > + (package > + (name "emacs-unkillable-scratch") > + (version (git-version "1.0.0" revision commit)) Is there any reason to use this particular commit? If so, please add a comment in the definition. Otherwise, I suggest to stick to stable releases. Regards,
Hello, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes: [...] > > Is there any reason to use this particular commit? If so, please add > a comment in the definition. Otherwise, I suggest to stick to stable > releases. > The main reason is the introduction of a handy defcustom in [0], and less importantly other small typo/doc fixes, and lack of a tagged release in about a year. [0]: https://github.com/EricCrosson/unkillable-scratch/commit/26102d5434e47c77219fce76c255cafb69b8e222 I think it would be nice if our package included the customization, but if there’s a strong preference over using a tagged release including in this case, I’d be happy to send a v2 definition to use a tagged version, and later inherit from it in my personal channel to make a -git version including the feature for my own use. What do you think? > > Regards, Thanks, amin
Amin Bandali <mab@gnu.org> writes: > The main reason is the introduction of a handy defcustom in [0], and > less importantly other small typo/doc fixes, and lack of a tagged > release in about a year. > > [0]: https://github.com/EricCrosson/unkillable-scratch/commit/26102d5434e47c77219fce76c255cafb69b8e222 > > I think it would be nice if our package included the customization, but > if there’s a strong preference over using a tagged release including in > this case, I’d be happy to send a v2 definition to use a tagged version, > and later inherit from it in my personal channel to make a -git version > including the feature for my own use. > > What do you think? I'm fine with using the latest release, but could you add a comment explaining the reasoning in the package definition and send it again? Thank you! Regards,
diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm index c5214405d0..0ff2f5d0c0 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm @@ -21125,3 +21125,26 @@ pattern guessed from thing under current cursor position. mercury-mode provided by Emacs as a wrapper around prolog-mode.") (home-page "https://github.com/ahungry/metal-mercury-mode") (license license:gpl3+)))) + +(define-public emacs-unkillable-scratch + (let ((commit "b24c2a760529833f230c14cb02ff6e7ec92288ab") + (revision "0")) + (package + (name "emacs-unkillable-scratch") + (version (git-version "1.0.0" revision commit)) + (source + (origin + (method git-fetch) + (uri (git-reference + (url "https://github.com/EricCrosson/unkillable-scratch.git") + (commit commit))) + (file-name (git-file-name name version)) + (sha256 + (base32 + "13wjbcxr3km4s96yhpavgs5acs5pvqv3ih1p84diqb3x3i6wd4pa")))) + (build-system emacs-build-system) + (home-page "https://github.com/EricCrosson/unkillable-scratch") + (synopsis "Prevents the *scratch* buffer from being killed") + (description "@code{unkillable-scratch} helps prevent killing buffers +matching a given regexp.") + (license license:gpl2+))))