GNU bug report logs - #62282
[PATCH] gnu: gerbil: Upgrade to 0.17.0.

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 62282 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 62282 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

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

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

From: "J. Sims" <jtsims <at> protonmail.com>
To: "guix-patches <at> gnu.org" <guix-patches <at> gnu.org>
Cc: "glv <at> posteo.net" <glv <at> posteo.net>, "jgart <at> dismail.de" <jgart <at> dismail.de>
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: gerbil: Upgrade to 0.17.0.
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:06:42 +0000

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

Hello,

Attached is a patch to upgrade Gerbil to the latest version. In addition, it fixes a few issues:

* switch build code to use g-expressions
* use the `#:tests?' argument of `arguments' instead of deleting the `check' phase
* run `guix style'
* fix issue with missing version file during build

Honestly, I'm not sure I fixed the latter issue in the most idiomatic way. I simply printed the appropriate s-expression to the appropriate file using Guile's `format'. If anyone has advice for a cleaner/more robust way to handle that, please let me know.

Note that I initially tried to fix the version file issue by ignoring the build instructions in the Gerbil guide and instead using the autotools build infrastructure whose artifacts can be seen in the top-level directory of the Gerbil repository. This ran into a different issue, and in the process of diagnosing it, I realized that the build infrastructure in question was written specifically for the previous version. There being no good reason to solve that problem over this one, and realizing that proper versioning would complicate the use of that system even more than solving the missing version file issue, I elected to pursue the route I did.

This is far too much information for a git commit message, but I did feel it worth mentioning somewhere.

Thanks,
Juli

[0001-gnu-gerbil-Upgrade-to-0.17.0.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bruno Victal <mirai <at> makinata.eu>
To: "J. Sims" <jtsims <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: "glv <at> posteo.net" <glv <at> posteo.net>, "jgart <at> dismail.de" <jgart <at> dismail.de>,
 62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62282] [PATCH] gnu: gerbil: Upgrade to 0.17.0.
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2023 13:57:36 +0000

Hi Juli,

On 2023-03-19 23:06, J. Sims via Guix-patches via wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Attached is a patch to upgrade Gerbil to the latest version. In addition, it fixes a few issues:
> 
> * switch build code to use g-expressions
> * use the `#:tests?' argument of `arguments' instead of deleting the `check' phase
> * run `guix style'
> * fix issue with missing version file during build
> 
> Honestly, I'm not sure I fixed the latter issue in the most idiomatic way. I simply printed the appropriate s-expression to the appropriate file using Guile's `format'. If anyone has advice for a cleaner/more robust way to handle that, please let me know.
> 
> Note that I initially tried to fix the version file issue by ignoring the build instructions in the Gerbil guide and instead using the autotools build infrastructure whose artifacts can be seen in the top-level directory of the Gerbil repository. This ran into a different issue, and in the process of diagnosing it, I realized that the build infrastructure in question was written specifically for the previous version. There being no good reason to solve that problem over this one, and realizing that proper versioning would complicate the use of that system even more than solving the missing version file issue, I elected to pursue the route I did.
> 
> This is far too much information for a git commit message, but I did feel it worth mentioning somewhere.

You should split these changes into separate commits.

Take a look at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61845> or search the git history for “G-Expression”
for some inspiration in how to split them.


Cheers,
Bruno

Message #11 received at 62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "J. Sims" <jtsims <at> protonmail.com>
To: "62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#62282] [PATCH] gnu: gerbil: Upgrade to 0.17.0.
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 02:12:18 +0000

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

Hello,

> You should split these changes into separate commits.
> 
> Take a look at https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61845 or search the git history for “G-Expression”

I have done so and the new patches are attached here.

The first two patches have the same effect as the initial patch. The third patch enables a set of features that were not enabled before, but which it would be useful to make available to Guix users.

Thanks,
Juli

[0001-gnu-gerbil-Update-to-0.17.0.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0003-gnu-gerbil-Enable-all-features.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0002-gnu-gerbil-Use-G-expressions.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #16 received at 62282-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: "J. Sims" <jtsims <at> protonmail.com>
Cc: "62282 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <62282-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#62282: [PATCH] gnu: gerbil: Upgrade to 0.17.0.
Date: Sun, 09 Apr 2023 00:01:38 +0200

Hello,

Thanks for taking the time to split the patch.  I’ve applied #1 and #2.

"J. Sims" <jtsims <at> protonmail.com> skribis:

> From 569fabf7029200cbb3166af83b8fc89a6378468d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Juliana Sims <jtsims <at> protonmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 23:56:07 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: gerbil: Enable all features.
>
> * gnu/packages/scheme.scm (gerbil): Enable all features.

[...]

> +                           "--enable-leveldb"
> +                           "--enable-libxml"
> +                           "--enable-libyaml"
> +                           "--enable-lmdb"
> +                           "--enable-mysql"
> +                           "--enable-sqlite"
> +                           "--enable-zlib")))
>                 (add-before 'patch-generated-file-shebangs 'fix-gxi-shebangs
>                   (lambda _
>                     ;; Some .ss files refer to gxi using /usr/bin/env gxi
> @@ -1202,8 +1211,18 @@ (define-public gerbil
>                       (copy-recursively "../bin" bin)
>                       (copy-recursively "../lib" lib)))))
>             #:tests? #f))
> -    (native-inputs (list coreutils gambit-c util-linux))
> -    (propagated-inputs (list gambit-c openssl sqlite zlib))
> +    (native-inputs (list coreutils
> +                         gambit-c
> +                         util-linux))
> +    (propagated-inputs (list gambit-c
> +                             leveldb
> +                             libxml2
> +                             libyaml
> +                             lmdb
> +                             mysql
> +                             openssl
> +                             sqlite
> +                             zlib))

I have two questions:

  1. What’s the impact on ‘guix size gerbil’?  Overall we should find a
     balance between feature usefulness and size.

  2. Do all these really need to be propagated?  Shouldn’t they be
     regular inputs?  If propagation is required, please add a comment
     explaining why.

I propose to close this issue since the initial goal has been met, but
please open a new one to follow up on this.

Thanks!

Ludo’.

Previous Next

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