GNU bug report logs - #40597
[PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in guix-binary tarball, rebuild instructions.

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:35:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: moreinfo, patch

Done: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 40597 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 40597 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox

Report forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#40597; Package guix-patches. (Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:35:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent to Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to guix-patches <at> gnu.org. (Mon, 13 Apr 2020 12:35:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in guix-binary tarball,
 rebuild instructions.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:34:38 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hello,

following the discussion in guix-devel, here is a small doc
addition to explain how binary-tarball modifications can
be built and then tested...

WDYT ?

-- 
Vincent Legoll


[0001-doc-Mention-update-guix-package-in-guix-binary-tarba.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#40597; Package guix-patches. (Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:42:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 40597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 40597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40597] [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in
 guix-binary tarball, rebuild instructions.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:41:12 +0200

Hi Vincent,

Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com> skribis:

>>From dd961656d9bd98d11ba5e38be89cd1952fefc263 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:25:57 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in guix-binary tarball
>  rebuild instructions.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Binary Installation): Mention 'make update-guix-package'.

I agree this needs to be documented, but I don’t think this is the right
place: “Binary Installation” is for users who want to install.  Instead,
we should document it in a section explicitly targeting Guix developers,
maybe under “Contributing”?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
Information forwarded to guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#40597; Package guix-patches. (Mon, 13 Apr 2020 13:44:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #11 received at 40597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 40597 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40597] [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in
 guix-binary tarball, rebuild instructions.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:43:33 +0200

On 13/04/2020 15:41, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> * doc/guix.texi (Binary Installation): Mention 'make update-guix-package'.
> I agree this needs to be documented, but I don’t think this is the right
> place: “Binary Installation” is for users who want to install.  Instead,
> we should document it in a section explicitly targeting Guix developers,
> maybe under “Contributing”?

OK, I'll see what I can do.

-- 
Vincent Legoll
Added tag(s) moreinfo. Request was from Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Mon, 25 May 2020 20:16:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Reply sent to Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>:
You have taken responsibility. (Wed, 14 Jul 2021 03:20:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
Notification sent to Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>:
bug acknowledged by developer. (Wed, 14 Jul 2021 03:20:01 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #18 received at 40597-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>, 40597-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#40597: [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in
 guix-binary tarball, rebuild instructions.
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 23:19:14 -0400

Hi Vincent and Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Vincent,
>
> Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com> skribis:
>
>>>>From dd961656d9bd98d11ba5e38be89cd1952fefc263 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Vincent Legoll <vincent.legoll <at> gmail.com>
>> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:25:57 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Mention update-guix-package in guix-binary tarball
>>  rebuild instructions.
>>
>> * doc/guix.texi (Binary Installation): Mention 'make update-guix-package'.
>
> I agree this needs to be documented, but I don’t think this is the right
> place: “Binary Installation” is for users who want to install.  Instead,
> we should document it in a section explicitly targeting Guix developers,
> maybe under “Contributing”?

A "Updating the Guix Package" subsection has since been added to the
Contributing section, which I believe covers this.

Thank you,

Closing.

Maxim
bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Wed, 11 Aug 2021 11:24:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 252 days ago.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.