Re: [PATCH] gnunet-svn, gnunet-gtk-svn

[ng0]

ng0 <address@hidden> writes:

> Andreas Enge <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 01:08:54PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>>> This was another failing test, someone before me reported it and
>>> therefore I have no bugreport to point to. I consider it superfluous
>>> work to fix 0.10.1 (the (define-public gnunet)) now that work towards
>>> 0.10.2 release happens. Tests might or might not change, so the svn
>>> version is more logical to fix and report bugs on.
>>
>> So maybe it may make sense to wait for 0.10.2 instead of adding packages
>> based on unreleased commits? In the meantime, you could work with upstream
>> to iron out test failures, and when 0.10.2 comes out, you might have a
>> working gnunet package.
>>
>> Andreas
>
> The reason for packaging -svn was to offer an regulary checked and
> updated svn revision of gnunet. I don't know much about what the 0.10.2
> release will mean, certainly it will mean the API compability is fixed
> for those who update to 0.10.2.
> It can be the end of the summer, it can be the end of the year. the
> targeted date was 2016-07-01. They are working quick, but I don't know
> what needs to be fixed etc. My contribution so far is just
> gnunet-gtk.desktop, something I feel like it's safe enough but
> necessary.
>
> If we had just 0.10.2, it would rule out one problem of my bigger
> roadmap. But people who would want to develop for it and use Guix at the
> same time, would want svn. Normaly HEAD isn't broken, it's as good as a
> release if they would  not change this much at the moment. 
>
> Should I provide -svn outside of Guix master?
>
> Should the -svn I provided just become a base for 0.10.2, waiting for
> release? The idea was a different one.. like guile and guile-next, 2
> releases, however I have to pin to a number for the reasons explained
> above.
>
>
> Based on this, could you still review it so independent from the
> decision I can have apply changes?
> If the decision is that having 2 versions and one working as the -svn I
> described above is not okay at the present moment, I will just start
> working on the gnunet-service.

Development is a bad example, but for the current state, not considering
"0.10.2 will be out soon", the existence of -svn on a system was more
than just for development.
When you read the old threads you can see that release
tarballs are just svn revisions with no additional changes.

With this recent change, maybe out-of-tree is a better place.

Fyi, I tried with most recent head and tests no longer fail it seems.
-- 
♥Ⓐ  ng0
Current Keys: https://we.make.ritual.n0.is/ng0.txt
For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org