From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: myglc2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clean all .go in clean-go Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:06:52 -0500 Message-ID: <864lq6yk0j.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20160831232034.13748-1-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <8760qgjugu.fsf@gnu.org> <874m5zokwp.fsf@gnu.org> <20160901203035.1ea32dee@openmailbox.org> <8737limq18.fsf@gnu.org> <20160916001540.617d9a54@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58900) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBsLy-00020I-Vb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:07:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eBsLv-0001Rd-Ke for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 06 Nov 2017 20:06:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160916001540.617d9a54@openmailbox.org> (Eric Bavier's message of "Fri, 16 Sep 2016 00:15:40 -0500") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Eric Bavier Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On 09/16/2016 at 01:15 Eric Bavier writes: > On Fri, 02 Sep 2016 14:42:27 +0200 > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > >> Eric Bavier skribis: >>=20 >> > On Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:37:58 +0200 >> > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote:=20=20 >>=20 >> [...] >>=20 >> >> > In regards of the .go files remaining in the build directory, I agr= ee >> >> > 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 accident= al >> >> > file deletions which is worse IMO. As a consequence I would prefer >> >> > keeping the current 'clean-go' rule.=20=20=20=20 >> >>=20 >> >> I sympathize with that.=20=20 >> > >> > How about simply printing a warning if there are any .go files laying >> > around after a `make clean` or `make clean-go`?=20=20 >>=20 >> 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/dm= d.go > ./gnu/system/linux.go ./gnu/packages/yasm.go ./gnu/packages/cursynth.go=20 > ./gnu/packages/lightning.go ./gnu/packages/doxygen.go ./gnu/packages/tre.= go=20 > ./gnu/packages/asciidoc.go ./gnu/packages/texlive.go ./gnu/packages/i3.go= =20 > ./gnu/packages/fish.go ./gnu/packages/slim.go ./gnu/packages/tcsh.go=20 > ./gnu/packages/zsh.go ./gnu/packages/lsh.go ./gnu/packages/rc.go=20 > ./gnu/packages/openssl.go ./gnu/packages/aria2.go ./gnu/packages/gdbm.go= =20 > ./gnu/packages/gnutls.go ./gnu/packages/grue-hunter.go ./gnu/packages/aar= ddict.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. 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 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=3D/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