guix lint doesn't actually fail on some errors

guix lint doesn't actually fail on some errors.

$ guix lint perl-io-socket-inet6 ; echo $?

;;; note: source file /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/networking.scm

;;; newer than compiled /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/networking.go

;;; note: source file /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/mail.scm

;;; newer than compiled /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/mail.go

;;; note: source file /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/ldc.scm

;;; newer than compiled /x/home/dannym/src/guix/gnu/packages/ldc.go

gnu/packages/networking.scm:437:1: perl-io-socket-inet6-2.72: line 464 is way too long (96 characters)

gnu/packages/networking.scm:437:1: perl-io-socket-inet6-2.72: line 483 is way too long (92 characters)

0

^--- ooops

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> skribis:

It never pretended to exit with non-zero when warnings are emitted. :-)

(These are warnings, not errors.)

Ludo’.

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 22:57:15 +0200

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:

Too bad :)

I wrote a little helper script which was supposed to prevent me from posting packages that don't build or lint. Then I found out that the lint actually doesn't fail on warnings. So now my script is only half as useful (the builder does fail on build error).

It would be nice to have a way to also check the lint status.

Hi,

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 23:12, Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> wrote:

The good news is that the initial example ’perl-io-socket-inet6’ now

does not report any linting error. :-)

Well, on the other side, it is still the same behaviour.

What do we do. On one hand, «it never pretended to exit with non-zero

when warninf» and on the other hand it could be annoying.

Well, since it is 4 years and 34 weeks, I consider it is not a big deal

and so we can close. WDYT?

All the best,

simon

Hi,

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 22:57, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:

Do we modify the returned code? If not, can we close?

Cheers,

simon

tags 24083 + moreinfo

quit

Hi,

On Wed, 27 Jul 2016 at 22:57, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:

Because of that, I propose to close without modifying the returned code.

WDYT?

Cheers,

simon

On Tue, 13 Jul 2021 11:05:49 +0200

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

Sure, it makes sense. I'm just doing " |wc -l" now.

Agreed.

But I would suggest to document in the manual that the exit status is

not set, though.

Hi,

Danny Milosavljevic <dannym@scratchpost.org> writes:

Acting on the proposed and agreed closing action :-).

--

Thanks,

Maxim