From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Tue Oct 25 02:31:15 2022 Received: (at 58768) by debbugs.gnu.org; 25 Oct 2022 06:31:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50223 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1onDT1-0006gd-ED for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 02:31:15 -0400 Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([178.21.23.139]:49776) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1onDSu-0006gJ-GD for 58768@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 02:31:14 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08FA54EBBB; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 08:31:07 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8SMTP id pewz1XkeIXUt; Tue, 25 Oct 2022 08:31:05 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1666679459; bh=KaMx1p+X8qSlQ6RI9p3LU1SsPpxk/n4w8ENO/Mq/S4Y=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:References:In-Reply-To; b=lTz4YC7sR1QVYKJNKdHNhAJB4k+vYCRAeQ1PNxNukN33DsZr9LjSEW4MVJeNfez6b DMY5o52K//VU3HPlHF6Wvx1hv2WbV7h2vBDble/aeDkXZKXEmCaD7y7IP6tSWtRYpB Anv4a6mxJiCPBiEbN0LjYX5Fq0HLaAncchlEXVJ0vDK3JjU45h/69ClXCfIeclIJsK MR2EuEhkrwWdX4ZA6f+l6GBZ0WocO6eyaatt6gs0XDxscXtqD3E3HE5WuJj6fV7+XL +usH+ubw9abJSJ5MrcGZLFtUreaghL1H3wLSsNy3V0H2KRO6z5BtyRM4hVVmRMoq24 pcEr5X63M8Rfg== Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2022 07:30:58 +0100 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [bug#58768] Patch attached From: "(" To: "Felix Lechner" , <58768@debbugs.gnu.org> References: In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 1.4 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: Hey, On Tue Oct 25, 2022 at 1:25 AM BST, Felix Lechner via Guix-patches via wrote: > Sorry, I meant to attach the patch instead of the file being added. Here it is. You should probably put the Go packages in golang.scm, not gocryptfs.scm, and gocryptfs could perhaps go in file-systems.scm. Content analysis details: (1.4 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.3 FROM_ONE_CHAR Bogus FROM name 0.0 T_SPF_TEMPERROR SPF: test of record failed (temperror) 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 58768 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) Hey, On Tue Oct 25, 2022 at 1:25 AM BST, Felix Lechner via Guix-patches via wrot= e: > Sorry, I meant to attach the patch instead of the file being added. Here = it is. You should probably put the Go packages in golang.scm, not gocryptfs.scm, a= nd gocryptfs could perhaps go in file-systems.scm. FYI, although this time a new file is not needed, when you create a new Sch= eme file in gnu/, you need to add it to gnu/local.mk. -- (