From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lint: add 'source' checker.
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 03:43:42 +0100
Message-ID: <54A7575E.7040903@gmail.com>
References: <54A0C5A8.2030105@gmail.com>	<1419824407-6471-1-git-send-email-tipecaml@gmail.com>
	<871tni357m.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51360)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tipecaml@gmail.com>) id 1Y7Egz-0001nh-MW
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:43:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <tipecaml@gmail.com>) id 1Y7Egv-0006Ib-Kj
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 02 Jan 2015 21:43:53 -0500
In-Reply-To: <871tni357m.fsf@gnu.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On 12/29/2014 03:23 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Cyril Roelandt <tipecaml@gmail.com> skribis:
> 
>> * guix/scripts/lint.scm (uri-available?): New procedure.
>>   (%checkers): Add 'home-page' checker
> 
> Some comments in addition to what David already wrote.
> 
>> +(define (uri-available? uri)
>> +  "Return #t if the given URI can be reached, otherwise throw a
>> +'not-available exception along with an appropriate error message."
> 
> By convention, one would expect ‘uri-available?’ to return #t or #f, not
> to throw.
> 
> How about calling it ‘validate-uri’ and directly call ‘emit-warning’
> from there?  It would need the field name as an additional argument.
> 

This would also require passing the "package" to validate-uri. How about
we make uri-available? return #t/#f, and just don't really care about
the exact reason why it failed ? Anyway a human being is going to
manually check what happened to know whether this is a real issue or
just a server that went down for a couple hours, or a file that wrongly
got removed...


Cyril.