Hi Andreas, On mer., 18 janv. 2023 at 12:23, Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> wrote:
> as a quick concrete question: Do simple package updates still count as > trivial, or do they need to go through the patches mailing list? > I intended to update pari-gp from 2.15.1 to 2.15.2, as usual by checking > that all dependent packages still compile. Having to fiddle with debbugs > is somewhat deterring (although admittedly having qa compile all dependent > packages is also a service in a context where I do not expect problems). In addition to Chris words. :-) >From my point of view, the first question is if the package is a leaf or not. :-) Well, the main point, IMHO, of the policy (suggesting to go via guix-patches) is to have an overview provided by qa.guix.gnu.org about the status of all the dependents. Being able to find all the dependents can be tricky; ’guix refresh -l’ is not always accurate because it misses some inheritance. Consider the case: The package B is dependent of the package A. The package C inherits from the package B. Then, “guix refresh -l A“ will list only B and not C. Although, a change in the package A implies the rebuild of the package C. Well, for a concrete example, please give a look at [1]. A “trivial” and apparently inoffensive update of the package ’git’ from 2.38.0 to 2.38.1 breaks some Julia packages. And, “guix refresh -l git” does not mention these Julia packages. The package ’git-minimal’ inherits from ’git’ and some Julia packages depends on ’git-minimal’. 1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/86wn7kd0m9....@gmail.com> All in all, going via guix-patches and let the build farm builds and reports is a good way for avoiding potential breakages. > but how is this specified in the email to the patch tracker, > so that qa applies the patch to the correct branch? I do not think the project has the resources to continuously build core-updates. That’s one of the points with core-updates: the collateral effects of some patches in core-updates are only know “later“ – roughly speaking when it is decided to merge core-updates; I mean, the current state of core-updates is highly variable and depends on many factors (the type of patches, the number of people taking care of that branch, etc.). Cheers, simon