[bug#54252] [PATCH] gnu: lemonbar: Update to 1.4.

[Maxime Devos]

Nicolas Goaziou schreef op vr 11-03-2022 om 23:09 [+0100]:
> However, in this thread the packager claimed they did not have
> sufficient knowledge in C to do so. I think it is not a reasonable
> expectation to ask them to report a problem they may not understand
> sufficiently in order to write a proper report and possibly take part to
> the discussion that would entail.

I think it's reasonable to ask them, but unreasonable to make it a
requirement; it should be an optional, albeit a nice bonus making
reviewing and committing go a tiny bit smoother.

However, this seems a bit irrelevant to the issue of the patch being
committed before this issue was reported -- basically, I make the
following assumptions:

  1. there is a known issue with the package
  2. known issues have to be reported upstream in order for a package
     to be included in Guix
  3. the packager did not report the issue
  4. a reviewer or the committer can report the issue

If no-one reported the issue, then from (1) and (2) it follows that the
package cannot (yet) be included in Guix.

Now, when can it be included in Guix?  Assume the extra assumption:

  6. the package is included in Guix.

then from (1) and (2) it follows that _someone_ must have had reported
the issue upstream.  In this case, this 'someone' is not the packager,
so it must have been a reviewer or committer (due to 4, assuming for
simplicity that it wasn't some bystander or someone from another distro
or something).

My conclusion is: to include a package in Guix, the issue must first be
reported upstream.  Additionally, if the packager did not report the
issue, that does not override the (undocumented?) requirement; if the
packager did not report it, that merely implies the reviewers or
committer will have to do it. 

Greetings,
Maxime.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part