Re: [PATCH] Clean all .go in clean-go

[myglc2 <myglc2@gmail.com>]

On 09/16/2016 at 01:15 Eric Bavier writes:

> On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:42:27 +0200
> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>
>> Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> skribis:
>> 
>> > On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:37:58 +0200
>> > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:  
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >> > In regards of the .go files remaining in the build directory, I agree
>> >> > that this is not good, however I don't think it is worth trying to fix
>> >> > this issue which equally applies to every file generated by Make.  Using
>> >> > wildcards can be tempting in such cases but it can lead to accidental
>> >> > file deletions which is worse IMO.  As a consequence I would prefer
>> >> > keeping the current 'clean-go' rule.    
>> >> 
>> >> I sympathize with that.  
>> >
>> > How about simply printing  a warning if there are any .go files laying
>> > around after a `make clean` or `make clean-go`?  
>> 
>> Sure, why not.
>
> So, with the attached patch, I get the following output after `make
> clean-go`:
>
> warning: stray .go files: ./guix/scripts/import/cpan.go ./gnu/services/dmd.go
> ./gnu/system/linux.go ./gnu/packages/yasm.go ./gnu/packages/cursynth.go 
> ./gnu/packages/lightning.go ./gnu/packages/doxygen.go ./gnu/packages/tre.go 
> ./gnu/packages/asciidoc.go ./gnu/packages/texlive.go ./gnu/packages/i3.go 
> ./gnu/packages/fish.go ./gnu/packages/slim.go ./gnu/packages/tcsh.go 
> ./gnu/packages/zsh.go ./gnu/packages/lsh.go ./gnu/packages/rc.go 
> ./gnu/packages/openssl.go ./gnu/packages/aria2.go ./gnu/packages/gdbm.go 
> ./gnu/packages/gnutls.go ./gnu/packages/grue-hunter.go ./gnu/packages/aarddict.go
>
> Maybe this means that I've not been doing due diligence in keeping my
> builddir clean, or maybe its just the result of developing on guix for
> so long.

Hi, I would like to request that you revisit the disposition of stray
.go files:

Grated, my request is subjective: I am primarily a guix user. But I want
_total artistic control_ so I do my guix upgrades using 'git pull; make'
in order to have editable guix source handy, should I be inspired to
make a change. In practice I do 'git pull; make' every few weeks. I
seldom actually submit patches, but sometimes I mess with packages for
my own ends.

<rant> As I understand it, my mode of use is not "supported". This
mystifies me because I actually think it is in stronger solidarity with
the FWF source mantra than guix pull, which gives read-only source in
the store which is not, by default, easily editable and so is just plain
annoying to moi! If Guix wants to encourage users to look at source,
find problems, and submit patches, I think you should encourage them to
use git checkout the same way the "real developers" do </rant>

Anyway, in my case I can't imagine why I would ever want "stray .go
files" kicking around my guix working tree. Can you?

Previously I was bitten when the guix API changed and was advised to do
'make clean-go' to "fix" the apparent bugs that this generated for
me. Having a reasonably powerful machine, I have adopted the practice of
routinely doing 'git pull; make clean-go; ./bootstrap ;./configure
--localstatedir=/var' to avoid such problems in the future.

Recently I was bitten by a stray .go file (bug#29072). In that situation
I would have been better off if 'make clean-go' nuked all the .go
files. Admittedly, I failed to notice the subtle stray .go warning, but,
in my defense, I was assuming that 'make clean-go' would just nuke all
the .go files so I wasn't expecting or looking for such a warning.

Maybe I am missing something here. Are there situations where it is
truly desirable for the guix 'make clean-go' to preserve .go files for
which no source exists? If not, maybe 'clean-go' should delete the stray
files by default, and issue a warning saying which stray files were
deleted.

Alternatively... how about adding a new make target that also removes
the stray .go files?

- George