On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 09:18:54PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote: > I think we should update the package definitions so that more have > tests, and failing that import the library so we know it can at > least be loaded, like this: > > + `(#:phases > + (modify-phases %standard-phases > + (replace 'check > + (lambda _ > + (zero? (system* "ruby" "-Ilib" "-r" "ansi")))))))
That is a good idea. When gems lack tests, either they don't have them, or the authors don't add them to gems. We can try and request upstream or add the tests ourselves. > I would prefer to do this testing in an environment where only the propagated > inputs are loaded, but I'm not sure how to do this. But I digress. > > Do you think it would be a good idea to provide a "bleeding edge" repository > so that users can more easily help with testing? Perhaps also a branch that > only updates according to semantic versioning? That may be interesting, at least to a Ruby specific audience. > > > > >What is useful is to generate (export) an updated package using the > >old one as an input. Or show a diff of version + SHA. That way it > >becomes reasonably easy to update packages. > I'm not sure what you mean. guix refresh has the --update flag, > which updates the version and source SHA hash in the source code - > useful. You just taught me something :) Pj.
