mbox

[bug#46391,0/1] Canonicalize-path load-path option

Message ID 20210209004011.14176-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com
Headers show

Message

Simon Tournier Feb. 9, 2021, 12:40 a.m. UTC 
Hi,

This fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/46390>.

The test suite does not check relative path for the load-path option.
I do not know what is the best to add a test about that.

Last, I remember discussions about absolute/relative path and I do not know
if this 'canonicalize-path' addition is the best fix here.


All the best,
simon


zimoun (1):
  scripts: build: Fix relative load-path.

 guix/scripts/build.scm | 16 +++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)


base-commit: 4cd8bab7d4b345c5538b8d039d84a957df7a235f

Comments

Simon Tournier Feb. 24, 2021, 12:18 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi,

On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 at 01:40, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:

> This fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/46390>.

Fixed by 9a38bed2cf32e9462badfa43e74cdd4580e804fc.


> The test suite does not check relative path for the load-path option.
> I do not know what is the best to add a test about that.
>
> Last, I remember discussions about absolute/relative path and I do not know
> if this 'canonicalize-path' addition is the best fix here.

[...]

> zimoun (1):
>   scripts: build: Fix relative load-path.

I even forgot to send the patch. :-)


Anyway, closing!

All the best,
simon
Ludovic Courtès Feb. 24, 2021, 10:46 p.m. UTC | #2 
Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> This fixes <https://bugs.gnu.org/46390>.
>
> The test suite does not check relative path for the load-path option.
> I do not know what is the best to add a test about that.
>
> Last, I remember discussions about absolute/relative path and I do not know
> if this 'canonicalize-path' addition is the best fix here.
>
>
> All the best,
> simon
>
>
> zimoun (1):
>   scripts: build: Fix relative load-path.
>
>  guix/scripts/build.scm | 16 +++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

I’m discovering this after having independently addreses #46390, sorry
about that!  (Perhaps we should always send patches that fix bugs to the
corresponding bug report rather than/in addition to guix-patches?)

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Ludo’.
Simon Tournier Feb. 24, 2021, 11:04 p.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Ludo,

On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 at 23:46, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> I’m discovering this after having independently addreses #46390, sorry
> about that!  (Perhaps we should always send patches that fix bugs to the
> corresponding bug report rather than/in addition to guix-patches?)

Anyway, because your patch is better than mine. :-)

In general, I try to at least mention in bug-guix the number from
guix-patches.  Sometimes, I directly send the patch to bug-guix.  It
depends on my mood I guess. :-)

Well, I do not have an opinion.

Maybe tiny patch (like this) that fixes bug should be sent to the
corresponding bug report.  And larger patches should be sent to
guix-patches; it eases to keep separated the discussion about the bug
and about the patches, IMHO.


Cheers,
simon