[PATCH] gnu: git: Return #t in install-man-pages phase.

DoneSubmitted by Brice Waegeneire.
Details
4 participants
  • Brice Waegeneire
  • Danny Milosavljevic
  • Mathieu Othacehe
  • Maxim Cournoyer
Owner
unassigned
Severity
normal
B
B
Brice Waegeneire wrote on 20 Mar 10:20 +0100
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)
20200320092005.22388-1-brice@waegenei.re
* gnu/packages/version-control.scm (git)[arguments]: Return #t ininstall-man-pages phase.--- gnu/packages/version-control.scm | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Toggle diff (20 lines)diff --git a/gnu/packages/version-control.scm b/gnu/packages/version-control.scmindex d25df4c63d..7eb85cc749 100644--- a/gnu/packages/version-control.scm+++ b/gnu/packages/version-control.scm@@ -441,7 +441,8 @@ as well as the classic centralized workflow.") (manpages (assoc-ref inputs "git-manpages"))) (mkdir-p man) (with-directory-excursion man- (invoke "tar" "xvf" manpages))))))))+ (invoke "tar" "xvf" manpages)))+ #t))))) (native-search-paths ;; For HTTPS access, Git needs a single-file certificate bundle, specified
base-commit: 837644b48a5107a28acbdb6d172aff0040a8247dprerequisite-patch-id: b9e1cb7e09e15cac4d607e985e2a3b5e301828e5prerequisite-patch-id: e22ea3f99fc3d9f3e11ddfa31ba60212f2ed4d62-- 2.25.1
D
D
Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 20 Mar 10:54 +0100
(name . Brice Waegeneire)(address . brice@waegenei.re)(address . 40143@debbugs.gnu.org)
20200320105406.42ba348b@scratchpost.org
invoke already returns #t, so there's no technical bug.
That said, maybe for clarity? Not sure...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAl50kr4ACgkQ5xo1VCwwuqUA6Af/V72+dk8p9/pwjv2aWdMjQFwg8SLeIio5wCxTp4JTNtl+DK+nyD57ZRZzc2I8flvOkmG5vijkiNL97e15fyHjTfD+aagTQClOM4oOIBkRrLciTnVk6LyJ4+ZCeokiQRcU0tWLf5ZYQ6ZdEkdtmOxHFmC1MeTShivNoCnnrCV/pv2Wk0aSMAAkwDh3vqNeqHwYJTgzbtcsw+CpmmDpAbRiUWMCRRH2oekbHaZlI9m7veN7Cj4x1JDov3EKaczuoiJ+IqHbGGv9yS5SmlgPmD7EoiLdNinLSV6p2EyvAaNdivuCHcpkTRMKoKaHuz+vaAvMZbnVND4TFwygwLT6+xTlEg===OkXj-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

M
M
Maxim Cournoyer wrote on 20 Mar 15:21 +0100
(name . Danny Milosavljevic)(address . dannym@scratchpost.org)
87blor3y5h.fsf@gmail.com
Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:
Toggle quote (4 lines)> invoke already returns #t, so there's no technical bug.>> That said, maybe for clarity? Not sure...
I don't see any technical nor clarity issue here. The vision laid outby Mark more than two years ago (!) was to get rid of all the booleanreturn codes and move to an exception based system entirely, which Ifind much more elegant. The transition plan was outlined in thismessage:https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-12/msg00278.html.
I think we should go back to work on finishing the missing bits :-).
Maxim
M
M
Mathieu Othacehe wrote on 21 Mar 15:29 +0100
(name . Brice Waegeneire)(address . brice@waegenei.re)
877dzdkcgv.fsf@gmail.com
Hello Brice,
Toggle quote (6 lines)> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:>>> invoke already returns #t, so there's no technical bug.>>>> That said, maybe for clarity? Not sure...
I agree with Danny and Maxim here, we already return a boolean, orraise an exception in case of error, so I think we are fine :)
Closing this bug,
Thanks,
Mathieu
B
B
Brice Waegeneire wrote on 21 Mar 15:43 +0100
Re: bug#40143: [PATCH] gnu: git: Return #t in install-man-pages phase.
(name . Brice Waegeneire)(address . brice@waegenei.re)
97f43fbba8a1b83caa53373c459a7639@waegenei.re
On 2020-03-21 14:29, Mathieu Othacehe wrote:
Toggle quote (17 lines)> Hello Brice,> >> Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:>> >>> invoke already returns #t, so there's no technical bug.>>> >>> That said, maybe for clarity? Not sure...> > I agree with Danny and Maxim here, we already return a boolean, or> raise an exception in case of error, so I think we are fine :)> > Closing this bug,> > Thanks,> > Mathieu
Looks like a forgot to reply to all, I replied to Danny that itshould be closed. I missed the RTFM sign... I didn't knew aboutMaxim's link and would like to know where are we in transitioningaway from getting rid of boolean return code in phases.
?