There is no reference to XML. Nor does it provide any interopabilietie with SOAP. Please stop wasting the mailinglists time with this non XML based hokum, this is Guxi.FFSaek.
:) ==================== Jonathan McHugh indieterminacy@libre.brussels April 1, 2022 6:15 AM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear reviewer, > > in the sequel find the new review checklist, effective immediately. > Failure to apply it will result in the confiscation of your machine for > the purpose of making it usable for continuous integration. > > Happy April Fools > > ----- > > So you want to package a > [ ] C [ ] C++ [ ] C# [ ] Common Lisp [ ] Emacs Lisp [ ] Fortran > [ ] Guile [ ] Haskell [ ] Java [ ] Javascript [ ] Julia [ ] Nim > [ ] OCaml [ ] Python [ ] R [ ] Rust [ ] V [ ] Zig [ ] ________ > application/library/________. > It won't be added to Guix. Here's why it won't. > > You appear to believe that > [ ] linter warnings can easily be ignored > [ ] `make check' does not need to succeed > [ ] nobody will ever want to build your package on > [ ] x86_64 [ ] i686 [ ] aarch64 [ ] armhf [ ] mips____ > [ ] powerpc____ [ ] riscv__ [ ] ______-mingw32 [ ] the Hurd > [ ] commit hashes make for good version numbers > [ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea > [ ] using trivial-build system is a good idea > [ ] we hard-code > [ ] invocations of command line tools > [ ] shared libraries > [ ] _________ > for fun > [ ] updating ______ to add your package does not cause a world rebuild > [ ] committers have nothing better to do than trailing a branch that > receives _____ commits per day. > > Sadly your patch has/lacks > [ ] copyright headers > [ ] changes in other parts of the file > [ ] indentation > [ ] speling misstakes > [ ] new-style inputs > [ ] propagated inputs > [ ] a useful synopsis > [ ] a meaningful description > [ ] a valid home-page > [ ] correct licensing information > [ ] significant improvements over the three other patches adding this > package, which themselves are stuck in review hell > > The following technophilosophical objections also apply: > [ ] the GNU FSDG prohibit _____________________________ > [ ] your package bundles a meaningless copy of > [ ] ffmpeg > [ ] v8 > [ ] font-awesome > [ ] bundler > [ ] rustc > [ ] ________ > [ ] your package bootstraps itself using a sparse autoencoder trained > on /dev/urandom > [ ] your package is not reproducible thanks to > [ ] embedded timestamps > [ ] CPU feature detection during configure/compile time > [ ] a flaky test suite > [ ] an evil hack to call rand() inside a constexpr context > [ ] Guix should not have to carry every fork of suckmore tools > > In conclusion, this is what I think of you: > [ ] Your patch looks good, but I'm not going to push it. > [ ] Your patch would need some work, and I'm not going to invest that > time on your behalf. > [ ] Your patch is bad and you should feel bad for submitting it. > [ ] Maintaining this package in your own channel is an adequate > punishment for writing it.
