Hi Guix,
In our manual, we link to the "ChangeLog" style[1], but in practice a different
convention is used.
Considering the following change (91bbed89b52eb64ee2388bf58be44eb5ae6a9dbb,
found this when searching ‘if’ in the guix package):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
modified gnu/packages/package-management.scm
@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ (define-public guix
$(prefix)/etc/openrc\n")))
(invoke "sh" "bootstrap")))
+ ,@(if (target-riscv64?)
+ `((add-after 'unpack
'use-correct-guile-version-for-tests
+ (lambda _
+ (substitute* "tests/gexp.scm"
+ (("2\\.0") "3.0")))))
+ '())
(add-before 'build 'use-host-compressors
(lambda* (#:key inputs target #:allow-other-keys)
(when target
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
This is what we use:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* gnu/packages/package-management.scm (guix)[arguments]: Add phase when
building for riscv64-linux to adjust the test suite.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
But according to GNU Coding Standards, the following might be used instead:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
* gnu/packages/package-management.scm (guix) <#:phases> [(target-riscv64?)]: Use
correct Guile version for tests.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
convention:
- * changed file
- () changed function or variable
- [] conditional change
- <> indicating the part changed
[] is added after <> because the condition happens within that part.
Should this documented convention be followed instead, or we documenting the one
currently used?
Thanks
[1]: https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Change-Logs.html
