Message ID | cover.1671527962.git.h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com |
---|---|
Headers |
Return-Path: <guix-patches-bounces+patchwork=mira.cbaines.net@gnu.org> X-Original-To: patchwork@mira.cbaines.net Delivered-To: patchwork@mira.cbaines.net Received: by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix, from userid 113) id 832F527BBEB; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:56:01 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on mira.cbaines.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) by mira.cbaines.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7975A27BBE9 for <patchwork@mira.cbaines.net>; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:56:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org>) id 1p7Z2c-0004uI-IY; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:36:06 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1p7Z1b-0004dc-81 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:35:08 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1p7Z1a-0002kS-Su for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:35:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1p7Z1a-0003Q6-Mg for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:35:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#57460] [PATCH v3 00/18] Refresh to specific version References: <cover.1661691694.git.h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> In-Reply-To: <cover.1661691694.git.h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> Resent-From: Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:35:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: <handler.57460.B57460.167152887413002@debbugs.gnu.org> Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 57460 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch moreinfo To: 57460@debbugs.gnu.org Cc: Ludovic Courtes <ludo@gnu.org> Received: via spool by 57460-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B57460.167152887413002 (code B ref 57460); Tue, 20 Dec 2022 09:35:02 +0000 Received: (at 57460) by debbugs.gnu.org; 20 Dec 2022 09:34:34 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43713 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1p7Z17-0003NX-L1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:34:34 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.24]:42869) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com>) id 1p7Z15-0003NG-1e for 57460@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 04:34:32 -0500 Received: from hermia.goebel-consult.de ([87.176.134.225]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue107 [212.227.15.183]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MD9CZ-1oyWSP3TiT-009BE3; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:34:24 +0100 Received: from thisbe.goebel-consult.de (hermia.goebel-consult.de [192.168.110.7]) by hermia.goebel-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3676620E; Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:34:22 +0100 (CET) From: Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 10:34:21 +0100 Message-Id: <cover.1671527962.git.h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:zBLcmqeEWqPIWTpQ7MLLF2yMGEZwG6TGw/oNOIxwxxySHZiAwbC eCBwz0tTdpwbRePbnibMHsTqo2pILSFhSwiE/RCpvj9/6GTgw+8XXKvZMeUtr/pKQkJJWgd bwReNV7Ijk3+OzDB5D9mvXVe/NbIBXCOhFU2r1IG/AM7RolmSD/dT8zQLTWWZKkw92HWCan ls6eQiGqbjMPEdfaCyarA== UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:kLbwpZD88IY=;m27NbGFgEUhzpdyA93KzG4RlqB7 JmTmuC6xqYFZ3HZcF1LTdnSptKYf+lKXYFcd3AZHcZcIzkY/wS4IVywLBHDM9AcqyYDJAcEz4 zuhwqS1HA6pZAhQOm1cXEV/wRJsYkH+C1uBY8a883E7UE3fYj39rYfqHU0PRPknBOTymGf4GB I9KbKVAvhm1GmBUJHUgdqD8p2jPdPrik2tiooyLF6JlcUePFHk4w93OXGWlixoWs4G1KqHf84 +053BOXGCJqcSc5D3skjcqt6C+5QbzoAhiNhCa7FIq35rwo9zmGVmdiZarSH6yCh3FSiITRg4 wz77cRv9doiqHNyARfvDnga9G54kqUk/ocyNiC+//GbsFCR92WeiCJiwMiNYiYmbUTTMKHPyT NHrjoYx65dM6bUjw0bbMbu5UTEDKMTXt9pWqcjGu20zOF6JWeMJV7vaWJbGZR7zpK9Dqbe5pm 7CLy0ZWDwxeQRyXr6op68f7yIhpzK/LOT8yCTIrFWmYTh1ZqnsGupnvdwTKoVLrv9DCf8Bq3d h4AYIkUGCbKocfeSVn9xFzUYt/VNnqaM33B+EbD8nf4tu9dwklZ1hLlmdYisN/Hz3kABGyyT0 /6bWLttw0b3O82BoCACN9zhQT57aQlR+5/+KWUOcM8e882h2LbIuVGkMc+a3Om1vNRNmXNxtm DhkaNSgzwJUgXNr6hBpi3Pvcnp8HDHNpa42kobQ8WsM0JubJETYRCgvx7fm2byw= X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>, <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches> List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>, <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+patchwork=mira.cbaines.net@gnu.org Sender: guix-patches-bounces+patchwork=mira.cbaines.net@gnu.org X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: Patches |
Series |
Refresh to specific version
|
|
Message
Hartmut Goebel
Dec. 20, 2022, 9:34 a.m. UTC
Hi Ludo, I now at last found time for updating the patch series. Following is the complete series as I would push it. > In Guix, “package spec” refers to the syntax that > ‘specification->package’ accepts, like “guile” or “guile@2.2”. So we’ll > have to use another name throughout. How about “update spec” or > “refresh spec” for the string, and just “update” for the record? Using "update" resulted in a conflict with the existing "update-package" function. Using "refesh" would have names the accessor "refresh-package", which sounds irritating for me (same for "update". Thus I decided to call the record "update-spec" and the function "update-string->update.spec" (the name is use only once). WDYT? > Since there are just two fields, it may be simpler to use SRFI-9: Done. I also tested the patches with (an updated version of) the test-script I posted in the first version of the series. Hartmut Goebel (18): upstream-updater: Rename record field. import: cpan: Remove unused exports. import: Issue error-message if version is given. import: sourceforge: Issue error-message if version is given. gnu-maintenance: Allow updating to a specific version. import: crate: Allow updating to a specific version. import: egg: Allow updating to a specific version. import: gem: Allow updating to a specific version. import: git: Allow updating to a specific version. import: github: Allow updating to a specific version. import: gnome: Allow updating to a specific version. import: hexpm: Allow updating to a specific version. import: kde: Allow updating to a specific version. import: launchpad: Allow updating to a specific version. import: pypi: Allow updating to a specific version. refresh: Allow updating to a specific version. upstream: Allow updating to a specific version. doc: Describe how to update to a specific version. doc/guix.texi | 19 ++++ guix/gnu-maintenance.scm | 183 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- guix/import/cpan.scm | 32 +++---- guix/import/cran.scm | 23 +++-- guix/import/crate.scm | 10 ++- guix/import/egg.scm | 10 ++- guix/import/elpa.scm | 11 ++- guix/import/gem.scm | 7 +- guix/import/git.scm | 39 +++++--- guix/import/github.scm | 36 +++++--- guix/import/gnome.scm | 47 ++++++---- guix/import/gnu.scm | 2 +- guix/import/hackage.scm | 12 ++- guix/import/hexpm.scm | 9 +- guix/import/kde.scm | 61 +++++++------ guix/import/launchpad.scm | 10 ++- guix/import/minetest.scm | 12 ++- guix/import/opam.scm | 11 ++- guix/import/pypi.scm | 14 +-- guix/import/stackage.scm | 10 ++- guix/scripts/refresh.scm | 49 +++++++--- guix/upstream.scm | 25 +++--- tests/import-github.scm | 2 +- tests/transformations.scm | 8 +- 24 files changed, 416 insertions(+), 226 deletions(-) base-commit: d241517d2cadac3122301b6260c0dfc9f3b383d6
Comments
Hi, Hartmut Goebel <h.goebel@crazy-compilers.com> skribis: >> In Guix, “package spec” refers to the syntax that >> ‘specification->package’ accepts, like “guile” or “guile@2.2”. So we’ll >> have to use another name throughout. How about “update spec” or >> “refresh spec” for the string, and just “update” for the record? > > Using "update" resulted in a conflict with the existing "update-package" > function. Using "refesh" would have names the accessor "refresh-package", > which sounds irritating for me (same for "update". Thus I decided to call the > record "update-spec" and the function "update-string->update.spec" (the name > is use only once). > > WDYT? Sounds good! >> Since there are just two fields, it may be simpler to use SRFI-9: > > Done. > > I also tested the patches with (an updated version of) the test-script I > posted in the first version of the series. Excellent. I posted suggestions for the last patch (doc); you can adjust it and push the whole series. Thank you! Ludo’.
Hi, Many thanks for the review. I followed your latest suggestions. and pushed as 7c476873e0300711bf92668cf01abd28f7295ead