bug#34586: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: emacs-dash: Update to 2.15.0.

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Brett Gilio <address@hidden> writes:

> Brett Gilio writes:
>
>> From 12c8c9ffab36fa29d202c6aca632dea476739e58 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Brett Gilio <address@hidden>
>> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 22:00:34 -0600
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] gnu: emacs-dash: Update to 2.15.0.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm (emacs-dash): Update to 2.15.0.
>> ---
>>  gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> index 75fc97471..0bea870e6 100644
>> --- a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> @@ -1607,7 +1607,7 @@ and stored in memory.")
>>  (define-public emacs-dash
>>    (package
>>      (name "emacs-dash")
>> -    (version "2.14.1")
>> +    (version "2.15.0")
>>      (source (origin
>>                (method git-fetch)
>>                (uri (git-reference
>> @@ -1616,7 +1616,7 @@ and stored in memory.")
>>                (file-name (git-file-name name version))
>>                (sha256
>>                 (base32
>> -                "1kzijmjxjxgr7p8clphzvmm47vczckbs8mza9an77c25bn627ywl"))))
>> +                "0dx8q3jr8fh73cfl7mqi5dq0012ambpvc74d2c71fsv9rfw85693"))))
>>      (build-system emacs-build-system)
>>      (arguments
>>       `(#:tests? #t
>
> So, this update to dash contains a `listp' functions that isn't
> available in earlier versions, as well as updates to a dash-functional
> module. These updates are needed for the lsp-mode and lsp-ui patches I
> sent in this series.
>
> As usual, I made sure all dependencies are building correctly with the
> dash update to 2.15.0, and I came across a failing build for
> `emacs-json-mode'. However, this failing build seems unrelated to the
> change in dash and has something to do with upstream.
>
> So, while I know that people are going to want to make sure that all of
> our packages that depend on dash are still working (and I encourage you
> to check before somebody pushes this to master), just know that specific
> failure seems to be unrelated.

Thanks for the extra testing!

I applied this patch to the master branch with commit
3490212a413c8f5f28b574f9b692bb28e081c7d0.

Thanks!

--
Ricardo