Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes:
> ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus <rek...@elephly.net> writes:
>>> In this case we should probably split these changes up as they are not
>>> related to one another. Alternatively, the summary line should be
>>> changed to apply to all of the changes in this patch.
>>
>> Can you give me an example how the summary line should look like then?
>
> I just checked the git log but couldn’t find a similar package in which
> changes of this magnitude were summarised in one commit.
>
> I suggest splitting this up. Actually, though, I think the description
> doesn’t need changing. I only suggested removing the sentence because I
> assumed that the package didn’t yet exist. There’s no harm in keeping
> it.
>
> Without the description change it’s really just one thing that has been
> changed:
Ah, you are right.
> gnu: femtolisp: Remove custom "patch-makefile" phase.
>
> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (femtolisp)[arguments]: Remove
> "patch-makefile" phase; specify test target; build "release"
> target instead of "default".
>
> What do you think?
>
> ~~ Ricardo
>
>
I will send an updated patch in one or two hours, thanks.
--
ng0
