Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
Full text available.
Received: (at 76220) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Mar 2025 16:44:15 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Sat Mar 08 11:44:15 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56353 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1tqxHa-0002WD-RZ
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2025 11:44:15 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57172)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1tqxHY-0002W0-VM
for 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 08 Mar 2025 11:44:13 -0500
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e])
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>)
id 1tqxHS-0007XE-28; Sat, 08 Mar 2025 11:44:06 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To:
From; bh=e7NFhtSbIFDS9S5rUl7248TO8GsI3XbgQKBBQ7q0qmI=; b=iTm87t8KY9XwqaqaEdbc
4NfGvG3GSi9FCnUZKnidjvrztMu/Z5HOu0GlZyF0dkLftLsl3Bkj7G2d1VGpeLgVv75WXcNiYfzGN
VXRXM0BgvsChuhjDrLJ8q7e14a+V757xD993c+5VAnfpzgIlLbo04xDM7bimMG4mEqMmqOmzgTwON
zGYLkUdZzTQyY1YIlLlwMpti8QCw3CkbchjLPDycFYg8xMVzOLTMuoOrXo/R2nEVwJcVXwBGKugBa
17Njxvhs5psLDZRJ952gTh6VKrjmCHqThOF6bFLaCL31eYo4LHZU38yMRm3sDPWrLKlwBltsejkjq
9C8wI5I9xP0wHg==;
From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN>
To: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
Subject: Re: [bug#76220] [PATCH] import/npm-binary: Handle vector of licenses.
In-Reply-To: <87y0y3i3hz.fsf@HIDDEN> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?=
=?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:09:28 +0100")
References: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN> <87y0y3i3hz.fsf@HIDDEN>
Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 17:43:58 +0100
Message-ID: <87zfhvsca9.fsf@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76220
Cc: 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
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: -3.3 (---)
Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@HIDDEN> skribis:
> Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN> skribis:
>
>> 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.
>
> Could you add a test case so it doesn=E2=80=99t come back to haunt us?
Kind reminder. :-)
Ludo'.
guix-patches@HIDDEN:bug#76220; Package guix-patches.
Full text available.Received: (at 76220) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Feb 2025 17:09:40 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Tue Feb 18 12:09:40 2025 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60219 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1tkR6K-00081n-B7 for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:09:40 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35180) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1tkR6I-00081H-Uh for 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:09:39 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ludo@HIDDEN>) id 1tkR6C-0006Cu-PS; Tue, 18 Feb 2025 12:09:32 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-Version:Date:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:To: From; bh=Xn1bJhFdo5wj8hlf/Npp8DthfZngJLOCZQEFmNG1Rpo=; b=ph4JnqH5y/tOIcyGNsQF Oc3elQTeEul2uq+f1qNCzxeLyXfQcXGk3OdLfdLEj9W+cvh4m88f/HzMZ/VfYiVaG872/wUezWTni 5IVsPPrSVErHmZBwMqcEs0vldRXT4SRbtFts9DrqHj105bnMJhwdc4k4Xbm+WPiMQRYbpKl2+Q9fJ hlwyA7GGY7/q/rqE1thz1cF1MvQGp3pjwtSadeTehMGPN5SPrN8BSK/I3irZWM/qsuLZ9vtFG8EQe i+4VMkfbBYaGmim1qZSyXcb6rPg5+AWPQYJcR501iCXbs1SchG6afP0qBGc60CcPAQk5NJqRcRLaG SMUjkXXRmJXBLg==; From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@HIDDEN> To: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: [bug#76220] [PATCH] import/npm-binary: Handle vector of licenses. In-Reply-To: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN> (Nicolas Graves's message of "Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:03:10 +0100") References: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 18:09:28 +0100 Message-ID: <87y0y3i3hz.fsf@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 76220 Cc: 76220 <at> debbugs.gnu.org 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: -3.3 (---) Hello, Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN> skribis: > 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. Could you add a test case so it doesn=E2=80=99t come back to haunt us? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99.
guix-patches@HIDDEN:bug#76220; Package guix-patches.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 12 Feb 2025 08:22:27 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 12 03:22:27 2025
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60718 helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1ti80p-0003kD-3B
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:22:27 -0500
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:470:142::17]:41322)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <ngraves@HIDDEN>)
id 1ti80k-0003jp-Qk
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:22:24 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10])
by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ngraves@HIDDEN>)
id 1ti80c-0008QB-TY
for guix-patches@HIDDEN; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:22:16 -0500
Received: from 10.mo581.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.33.250.56])
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
(Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <ngraves@HIDDEN>)
id 1ti80X-00010f-9I
for guix-patches@HIDDEN; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 03:22:12 -0500
Received: from director2.ghost.mail-out.ovh.net (unknown [10.109.140.166])
by mo581.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YtBB41FCrz1DSx
for <guix-patches@HIDDEN>; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:22:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ghost-submission-5b5ff79f4f-8ll4c (unknown [10.110.168.159])
by director2.ghost.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B77D31FEAD
for <guix-patches@HIDDEN>; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:22:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ngraves.fr ([37.59.142.97])
by ghost-submission-5b5ff79f4f-8ll4c with ESMTPSA
id aWJCICtarGcSCwAAJhJUqg (envelope-from <ngraves@HIDDEN>)
for <guix-patches@HIDDEN>; Wed, 12 Feb 2025 08:22:03 +0000
Authentication-Results: garm.ovh; auth=pass
(GARM-97G0020d14bdd4-4c4a-4ae7-8b87-1627215c1471,
62BFB7A69F7B9EF72AEEFD1B5628889879A671A4) smtp.auth=ngraves@HIDDEN
X-OVh-ClientIp: 90.92.117.144
From: Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>
To: guix-patches@HIDDEN
Subject: [PATCH] import/npm-binary: Handle vector of licenses.
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 01:03:10 +0100
Message-ID: <87wmdvmv2s.fsf@HIDDEN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 6497286888980341498
X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK
X-VR-SPAMSCORE: 0
X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgdegfeeflecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfqggfjpdevjffgvefmvefgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecunecujfgurhephffvufffkfggtgesthdtredttddttdenucfhrhhomheppfhitgholhgrshcuifhrrghvvghsuceonhhgrhgrvhgvshesnhhgrhgrvhgvshdrfhhrqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeeujeelieeljeffhfelteejtdeljeehveduffelvefgudefkeehgfdvvdevgeevfeenucfkphepuddvjedrtddrtddruddpledtrdelvddruddujedrudeggedpfeejrdehledrudegvddrleejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepuddvjedrtddrtddruddpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehnghhrrghvvghssehnghhrrghvvghsrdhfrhdpnhgspghrtghpthhtohepuddprhgtphhtthhopehguhhigidqphgrthgthhgvshesghhnuhdrohhrghdpoffvtefjohhsthepmhhoheekudgmpdhmohguvgepshhmthhpohhuth
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; bh=dVIbqS+1R12HO1LeXevTrxH2yzf3JEBjm+naaCaC3II=;
c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ngraves.fr; h=From;
s=ovhmo4487190-selector1; t=1739348524; v=1;
b=g0pJs73a7BtCkvTpdF6dQdlVP2Uu03OSDphTo3mqHgqZewJiZjbQ6q4lJH3XM4/Uxer2Q9EZ
RudyGmEiCDlCDazauRd6OojgWvyJlkRs2ngKXx7S3U7nyThZZUdp8vaklmNr42fr077cTGrzQs4
aib8gwz2/FLEQuL372wzyQIiPnWQvy++pZN6ZKeijg6vj9rt5EhkVR6N8ekpSf4oX4bL+e+3B4V
4XL6UG7FAprN7xKfv4spYaDMqlWhs8kFi+Jjtui8IMLMUs9U6/C9PbvGjlrGVCikeU8O1XitkKL
Z6EN4xgUo6O7dXzzCMWQf0lJ3SZhlhlLYjzrUut80Xc3A==
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-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
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
Nicolas Graves <ngraves@HIDDEN>:guix-patches@HIDDEN.
Full text available.guix-patches@HIDDEN:bug#76220; Package guix-patches.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.