GNU bug report logs -
#56599
[PATCH] gnu: fortune-mod: Remove off database.
Previous Next
Reported by: raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:24:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <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 56599 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 56599 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org.
(Sat, 16 Jul 2022 12:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
* gnu/packages/games.scm (fortune-mod): Delete off database after install phase.
---
gnu/packages/games.scm | 5 ++++-
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/games.scm b/gnu/packages/games.scm
index 713f9339b2..cf10ebc9b6 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/games.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/games.scm
@@ -7721,7 +7721,10 @@ (define-public fortune-mod
(lambda _
(with-directory-excursion #$output
(rename-file "games/fortune" "bin/fortune")
- (rmdir "games")))))))
+ (rmdir "games"))))
+ (add-after 'install 'commit-censorship
+ (lambda* (#:key outputs #:allow-other-keys)
+ (delete-file-recursively (string-append (assoc-ref outputs "out") "/share/fortunes/off/")))))))
(inputs (list recode))
(native-inputs
(list perl
--
2.37.0
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Wed, 03 Aug 2022 13:44:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> Since the addition of fortune-jkirchartz, it is no longer necessary to
> keep around a package that propagates various non-nice things.
> For a complete list, see <https://bugs.gnu.org/54691>.
>
> * gnu/packages/games.scm (fortune-mod): Delete variable.
[...]
> -(define-public fortune-mod
(Perhaps also make “fortune-mod” a deprecated name for
“fortune-jkirchartz”.)
FWIW I’m fine with this change. Note that there’s also another patch
that removes the ‘off’ database of ‘fortune-mod’¹, though I don’t know
whether that would fully address the issues raised in this thread. It
will have to closed if/once this series is applied.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
¹ https://issues.guix.gnu.org/56599
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Wed, 03 Aug 2022 15:04:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Censorship is a tricky term, and it does not directly address why the
database is being removed. The phase should be more simply renamed to
remove-offensive-database, and include a comment on why the database is
being removed, referencing #54691.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Wed, 03 Aug 2022 17:10:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi Ludo,
Am Mittwoch, dem 03.08.2022 um 15:43 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
> [...]
> > -(define-public fortune-mod
>
> (Perhaps also make “fortune-mod” a deprecated name for
> “fortune-jkirchartz”.)
I'm getting mixed messages here. On the one hand, Maxime suggests not
propagating daikichi from fortune-jkirchartz (which makes it a plain
data package lacking a `fortune' command), on the other we want to mark
fortune-mod as deprecated. These are mutually exclusive options.
> FWIW I’m fine with this change. Note that there’s also another patch
> that removes the ‘off’ database of ‘fortune-mod’¹, though I don’t
> know whether that would fully address the issues raised in this
> thread. It will have to closed if/once this series is applied.
IIRC, I responded to such a patch already, though perhaps not that
thread in particular. To summarize, fortune-mod also propagates non-
nice things outside of ‘off’, so removing it is not enough.
Cheers
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2022 12:25:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #17 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> Am Mittwoch, dem 03.08.2022 um 15:43 +0200 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> [...]
>> > -(define-public fortune-mod
>>
>> (Perhaps also make “fortune-mod” a deprecated name for
>> “fortune-jkirchartz”.)
> I'm getting mixed messages here. On the one hand, Maxime suggests not
> propagating daikichi from fortune-jkirchartz (which makes it a plain
> data package lacking a `fortune' command), on the other we want to mark
> fortune-mod as deprecated. These are mutually exclusive options.
To me use of ‘deprecated-package’ in this case is just to ensure that
users who run ‘guix upgrade’ will transparently get
‘fortune-jkirchartz’. I don’t have a strong opinion though.
>> FWIW I’m fine with this change. Note that there’s also another patch
>> that removes the ‘off’ database of ‘fortune-mod’¹, though I don’t
>> know whether that would fully address the issues raised in this
>> thread. It will have to closed if/once this series is applied.
> IIRC, I responded to such a patch already, though perhaps not that
> thread in particular. To summarize, fortune-mod also propagates non-
> nice things outside of ‘off’, so removing it is not enough.
Alright, let’s remove ‘fortune-mod’ then.
Thanks for taking care of it!
Ludo’.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2022 15:38:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #20 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
>To me use of ‘deprecated-package’ in this case is just to ensure that
>users who run ‘guix upgrade’ will transparently get
>‘fortune-jkirchartz’. I don’t have a strong opinion though.
I believe what Liliana meant is that it's worse to 'transparently' upgrade to a data package that doesn't provide the 'fortune' command at all (or conversely, an implementation of the command that doesn't propagate the actual fortune data), than it is to signal to users through an error message that something's up and they need to stop and think.
(Er, that's a lot more words to put in someone's mouth than I intended to, sorry :-)
I'd suggest a news item but I really don't think this warrants it.
Kind regards,
T G-R
Sent on the go. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2022 17:12:17 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #23 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Am Donnerstag, dem 04.08.2022 um 15:37 +0000 schrieb Tobias Geerinckx-
Rice:
> > To me use of ‘deprecated-package’ in this case is just to ensure
> > that users who run ‘guix upgrade’ will transparently get
> > ‘fortune-jkirchartz’. I don’t have a strong opinion though.
>
> I believe what Liliana meant is that it's worse to 'transparently'
> upgrade to a data package that doesn't provide the 'fortune' command
> at all (or conversely, an implementation of the command that doesn't
> propagate the actual fortune data), than it is to signal to users
> through an error message that something's up and they need to stop
> and think.
>
> (Er, that's a lot more words to put in someone's mouth than I
> intended to, sorry :-)
I'm not saying either option is worse than the other, just that we
can't pick both in a manner that provides a functioning package, and
that transparently upgrading to a package that does nothing is a pretty
bad option. We could transparently upgrade to daikichi, but that'd
just say "no fortunes found" because FORTUNE_PATH will be empty. Other
options would include a metapackage (also rejected by Maxime) or
providing a dummy fortune-mod package that fails at build with a
helpful message and is disabled in CI (came up as a shower thought).
Cheers
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Thu, 04 Aug 2022 20:24:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #26 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Liliana,
Liliana Marie Prikler 写道：
> I'm not saying either option is worse than the other
I see; thanks for the clarification.
Then I *will* say that transparently upgrading to a package that
does nothing is worse than simple removal.
In fact, all of the proposed hacks are…
Kind regards,
T G-R
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Sat, 06 Aug 2022 23:02:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #29 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
On +2022-08-04 21:58:16 +0200, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> Hi Liliana,
>
> Liliana Marie Prikler 写道：
> > I'm not saying either option is worse than the other
>
> I see; thanks for the clarification.
>
> Then I *will* say that transparently upgrading to a package that does
> nothing is worse than simple removal.
>
> In fact, all of the proposed hacks are…
>
> Kind regards,
>
> T G-R
I hope the original is preserved somewhere for history's sake.
So where can I get a copy to see what all the fuss is about? :)
--
Regards,
Bengt Richter
It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to.
-- W. C. Fields
Start every day off with a smile and get it over with.
-- W. C. Fields
Information forwarded
to
guix-patches <at> gnu.org:
bug#56599; Package
guix-patches.
(Sat, 06 Aug 2022 23:06:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #32 received at 56599 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On 07-08-2022 01:01, bokr <at> bokr.com wrote:
> I hope the original is preserved somewhere for history's sake.
> So where can I get a copy to see what all the fuss is about? :)
It's not merged yet IIUC, so you can just use the Guix package manager
to install the original.
For the history thing: we have "guix time-machine" and the SWH fallback.
Greetings,
Maxime.
[OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
Reply sent
to
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>:
You have taken responsibility.
(Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:23:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Notification sent
to
raingloom <raingloom <at> riseup.net>:
bug acknowledged by developer.
(Tue, 30 Aug 2022 10:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #37 received at 56599-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Am Sonntag, dem 07.08.2022 um 01:05 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos:
> On 07-08-2022 01:01, bokr <at> bokr.com wrote:
>
> > I hope the original is preserved somewhere for history's sake.
> > So where can I get a copy to see what all the fuss is about? :)
>
> It's not merged yet IIUC
It is merged now, so take out your time machines if you want to have
offensive fortunes. Or build the datfiles with daikichi, I can't stop
you ;)
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
(Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:24:05 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 1 year and 212 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.