Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form

[Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>]

Andy Wingo (2016-04-07 13:08 +0300) wrote:

> On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300
>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> > +         "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4"))
>>>> > +       (patches (map search-patch '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch")))))
>>>>
>>>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here.
>>>
>>> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later.  The
>>> same has been used in other packages.
>>
>> I strongly disagree with this policy.  More patches may never be added,
>> but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.
>
> What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the
> items in the list if the path is not absolute?  Use
> `absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not.

I think it is a good choice that 'patches' field takes a list of file
names.  For example, currently a user can do:

  (patches (find-my-patches "package-name"))

With what you suggest, it would not be possible.

-- 
Alex