Hi Simon, Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi, > > On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 at 18:04, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > >> What about renaming ‘patch’ to ‘patch/pinned’ and having ‘patch’ point >> to the new version? >> >> Internally, we’d refer to ‘patch/pinned’ in (guix packages), but user >> code etc. would refer to ‘patch’ and thus get the latest version. > > I agree; it appears to me “safer” than the graft. > > However, the cost is to identify which package needs ’patch/pinned’ and > which needs new ’patch’. Then once upstream Patch upgrades, there is > also the question to unpin all the packages. Indeed. It'll be easy though to grep for 'patch/pinned', which are far and few in between, compared to grepping for 'patch'... I've implemented Ludovic's suggestion in v4, before I actually read this reply of yours... I think it's OK; it goes a bit further than 'patch-latest' to protect users in case they refer to the 'patch' package variable directly. -- Thanks, Maxim
