GNU logs - #76220, boring messages

Message sent to guix-patches@HIDDEN:

Subject: [bug#76220] [PATCH] import/npm-binary: Handle vector of licenses.
Resent-From: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-CC: guix-patches@HIDDEN
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:23:02 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.76220.B.173934854714402 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
To: 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
From: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:03:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=178.33.250.56; envelope-from=ngraves@HIDDEN;
 helo=10.mo581.mail-out.ovh.net
X-Spam_score_int: -5
X-Spam_score: -0.6
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: (-0.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.543,
 DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001,
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001,
 SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-Spam-Score: 2.1 (++)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 Content preview:  I stumbled on this with the import of stream-spec. I don't
 know however if that only happens for very old packages because they weren't
 aligned with current practises. * guix/import/npm-binary.scm
 (<package-revision>)[license]:
 Handle the case where a vector of licenses is used. ---
 guix/import/npm-binary.scm
 | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 del [...] 
 Content analysis details:   (2.1 points, 10.0 required)
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 no trust [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in] [list.dnswl.org]
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
 1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12     Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date
 1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL           SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit/>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, 
 <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Sender: "Debbugs-submit" <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+)
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org",
 has NOT identified this incoming email as spam.  The original
 message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  I stumbled on this with the import of stream-spec. I don't
    know however if that only happens for very old packages because they weren't
    aligned with current practises. * guix/import/npm-binary.scm (<package-revision>)[license]:
    Handle the case where a vector of licenses is used. --- guix/import/npm-binary.scm
    | 12 +++++++++++- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 del [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.1 points, 10.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE     RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
                              no trust
                             [2001:470:142:0:0:0:0:17 listed in]
                             [list.dnswl.org]
 -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS          SPF: HELO matches SPF record
  1.1 DATE_IN_PAST_06_12     Date: is 6 to 12 hours before Received: date
  1.0 SPF_SOFTFAIL           SPF: sender does not match SPF record (softfail)
 -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI     Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list
                             manager

I stumbled on this with the import of stream-spec.  I don't know
however if that only happens for very old packages because they
weren't aligned with current practises.

* guix/import/npm-binary.scm (<package-revision>)[license]: Handle the
case where a vector of licenses is used.
---
 guix/import/npm-binary.scm | 12 +++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/guix/import/npm-binary.scm b/guix/import/npm-binary.scm
index 92ac7d338e..bc5fd2d5d6 100644
--- a/guix/import/npm-binary.scm
+++ b/guix/import/npm-binary.scm
@@ -103,7 +103,17 @@ (define-json-mapping <package-revision> make-package-revision package-revision?
               (match (assoc "type" alist)
                 ((_ . (? string? type))
                  (spdx-string->license type))
-                (_ #f)))))
+                (_ #f)))
+             ((? vector? vector)
+              (match (filter-map
+                      (match-lambda
+                        ((? string? str) (spdx-string->license str))
+                        (_ #f))
+                      (vector->list vector))
+                ((license rest ...)
+                 (cons* license rest))
+                ((license)
+                 license)))))
   (description package-revision-description             ;string
                "description" empty-or-string)
   (dist package-revision-dist "dist" json->dist))       ;dist
-- 
2.48.1



-- 
Best regards,
Nicolas Graves

Message sent:

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.505 (Entity 5.505)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: help-debbugs@HIDDEN
From: help-debbugs@HIDDEN (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
Subject: bug#76220: Acknowledgement ([PATCH] import/npm-binary: Handle
 vector of licenses.)
Message-ID: <handler.76220.B.173934854714402.ack <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
References: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN>
X-Gnu-PR-Message: ack 76220
X-Gnu-PR-Package: guix-patches
X-Gnu-PR-Keywords: patch
Reply-To: 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:23:02 +0000

Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 guix-patches@HIDDEN

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

Please do not send mail to help-debbugs@HIDDEN unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

--=20
76220: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D76220
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@HIDDEN with problems

Last modified: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:30:01 UTC

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.