From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build newest versions unless specified, and upgrades.
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:04:50 +0100
Message-ID: <87y5eskjrh.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87vc9yxcre.fsf@tines.lan> <8738x1xrek.fsf@tines.lan>
	<87vc9xqpd6.fsf@tines.lan> <201302122204.54359.andreas@enge.fr>
	<87liatp5tl.fsf@gnu.org> <87d2w4iit9.fsf_-_@tines.lan>
	<87zjz8h260.fsf@tines.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59311)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5jVq-00036V-7E
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:05:11 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5jVk-0005ee-EP
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:05:06 -0500
Received: from [2a01:e0b:1:123:ca0a:a9ff:fe03:271e] (port=40360
	helo=xanadu.aquilenet.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1U5jVk-0005YZ-7c
	for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:05:00 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87zjz8h260.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 13
	Feb 2013 06:40:55 -0500")
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-guix>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-guix@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-guix>,
	<mailto:bug-guix-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: bug-guix@gnu.org

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> I wrote:
>> Here's a preliminary patch that does two things:
>>
>> * Changes 'guix-build' and 'guix-package --install' so that only the
>>   newest packages will be considered (unless a version number is
>>   specified).
>>
>> * Implements 'guix-package --upgrade'.
>>
>> Although I'm not aware of any functional problems with this code, I'm
>> not entirely pleased with its organization.  Nonetheless, I wanted to
>> make it available for early testing and comments.
>>
>> I welcome suggestions on how to improve this code.
>
> Sorry, that patch had a problem in guix-build.  Here's a fixed version.

I haven=E2=80=99t actually tested, but it looks good to me!

I could have left =E2=80=98guix-build=E2=80=99 as is, because hackers shoul=
d really use
-e when they want something specific, but I=E2=80=99m fine either way.

Could you update the doc, under =E2=80=9CInvoking guix-package=E2=80=9D, st=
ating what
happens when giving a package name without a version number?

Minor remarks:

> +(define (find-newest-available-packages)
> +  "Return a vhash with elements of the form
> +  (name newest-version newest-package ...)
> +where the preferred package is listed first."

What about something like this:

  Return a vhash keyed by package names, and with associated values of
  the form

    (newest-version newest-package)

> +  (define (upgradeable? name current-version current-path)
> +    ;; Return #t if there is a newer version available, or if the
> +    ;; newest version if the same as the current one but the
> +    ;; output path would be different than the current path.

Try to mention the variables here, like:

  Return #t if there=E2=80=99s a version of package NAME newer than
  CURRENT-VERSION ...

Other than that, please push!

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.