[PATCH] gnu: python-mock: Update to 4.0.3.

  • Open
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • jbranso
  • peter
  • Skyler Ferris
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
peter
Severity
normal
P
P
peter wrote on 30 May 2022 16:15
(address . guix-patches@gnu.org)(name . Peter Polidoro)(address . peter@polidoro.io)
e91d3545786ce3f7b592f17cce557eb0b3affd1a.1653920046.git.peter@polidoro.io
From: Peter Polidoro <peter@polidoro.io>

* gnu/packages/check.scm (python-mock): Update to 4.0.3.
---
gnu/packages/check.scm | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Toggle diff (23 lines)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/check.scm b/gnu/packages/check.scm
index 8df5d87476..535c68cacc 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/check.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/check.scm
@@ -855,14 +855,14 @@ (define-public python2-minimock
(define-public python-mock
(package
(name "python-mock")
- (version "3.0.5")
+ (version "4.0.3")
(source
(origin
(method url-fetch)
(uri (pypi-uri "mock" version))
(sha256
(base32
- "1hrp6j0yrx2xzylfv02qa8kph661m6yq4p0mc8fnimch9j4psrc3"))))
+ "1g67p9a2by5j5d6yncpf1m68nigsvxfa86giy7r4z3r233gbngvx"))))
(propagated-inputs
(list python-six))
(build-system python-build-system)
--
2.36.0
J
J
jbranso wrote on 12 Mar 20:59 +0100
Re: Handling expensive packages
4d42f1c112461bd6bb81420b9794c027d1f2e139@dismail.de
Hey Peter!

Your patch found its way on onto the guix devel list!

Thanks for contributing to guix! We want to add your patch, and we are wondering what your motivation was for sending this patch? Is your patch a prerequisite for a package you want to add? Or do you have some other reason?

Thanks,

Joshua

March 11, 2024 at 3:06 PM, "Skyler Ferris" <skyvine@protonmail.com> wrote:



Toggle quote (12 lines)
>
> Hello,
>
> I am looking through the backlog of open patch submissions https://issues.guix.gnu.org/search?query=is%3Aopen+tag%3Apatch to see if any are actionable on my end. One such patch is issue 55728 which updates python-mock https://issues.guix.gnu.org/55728 . Based on the output of `guix refresh --list-dependent python-mock | wc`, this will impact more than 2000 packages. While this submission is very old, neither the master nor python-team branches have updated this package yet. In section 22.8.2 "Managing Patches and Branches" https://guix.gnu.org/en/manual/devel/en/html_node/Managing-Patches-and-Branches.html , there is a recommendation that changes which effect more than 300 dependents are added to a different branch for testing.
>
> These dependents presumably still work, as there are not 2000 build failures or a flood of related bug reports. So I think it would make sense to first ask the submitter for their motivation for sending the patch (for example, it might be a prerequisite for a package they want to add and they did not send it as a series for some reason). Depending on their response it might make sense to do something other than apply the update as given (for example, by providing both versions of the package so that a new package can be added without impacting existing branches). But there also might be some reason why it makes sense to apply the update everywhere (for example, if significant optimizations in the update reduces build times for all of the dependent packages).
>
> So my main question is whether or not people agree that it makes sense to ask the submitter for more information and take no other action at this time. And as a secondary question, if it does make sense to update the package everywhere is there anything actionable on my end?
>
> Regards,
> Skyler
>
P
P
Peter Polidoro wrote on 12 Mar 21:45 +0100
(address . jbranso@dismail.de)
B22ACCA8-97D8-4516-854F-2A80EB9436D3@polidoro.io
You can ignore or delete this patch if it is causing problems.

If I remember correctly, that was a patch I submitted a couple of years ago when I was attempting to package some embedded software tools, either the zephyr west tool or platformio, both written in python. That sent me down the rabbit hole of dependency updates, the python-mock package being one of them.

I would still love to have both west and platformio packaged in guix. Perhaps those exist now in Guix or another channel, I have not checked in a while. If not, I will attempt to package them again at some point.

Thanks!

Toggle quote (11 lines)
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 15:59, jbranso@dismail.de wrote:
> ?Hey Peter!
>
> Your patch found its way on onto the guix devel list!
>
> Thanks for contributing to guix! We want to add your patch, and we are wondering what your motivation was for sending this patch? Is your patch a prerequisite for a package you want to add? Or do you have some other reason?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joshua
> https://gnucode.me
S
S
Skyler Ferris wrote on 13 Mar 01:15 +0100
0aea0990-046d-4759-818b-e8380d5147b1@protonmail.com
On 3/12/24 13:45, Peter Polidoro wrote:

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> If I remember correctly, that was a patch I submitted a couple of years ago when I was attempting to package some embedded software tools, either the zephyr west tool or platformio, both written in python. That sent me down the rabbit hole of dependency updates, the python-mock package being one of them.
>
> I would still love to have both west and platformio packaged in guix. Perhaps those exist now in Guix or another channel, I have not checked in a while. If not, I will attempt to package them again at some point.

Thank you for the information. I see that west is packaged in gnu/packages/embedded.scm, but the only reference to platformio is an emacs plugin which I suspect is not what you are referring to. So it sounds like there is no particular reason to process this patch immediately but it makes sense to leave open because it might be used down the line.
Attachment: file
?