Re: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: Add emacs-constants.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis:

> On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 11:08 PM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Federico Beffa <beffa@ieee.org> skribis:
>
>>> +(define* (uncompressed-file-fetch url hash-algo hash
>>> +                                  #:optional name
>>> +                                  #:key (system (%current-system))
>>> +                                  (guile (default-guile)))
>>> +  (mlet %store-monad ((drv (url-fetch url hash-algo hash name
>>> +                                      #:system system
>>> +                                      #:guile guile)))
>>> +    (gexp->derivation (or name (basename url))
>>> +                      #~(begin
>>> +                          (mkdir #$output)
>>> +                          (setenv "PATH"
>>> +                                  (string-append #$gzip "/bin"))
>>> +                          (chdir #$output)
>>> +                          (copy-file #$drv (basename #$url))))))
>>
>> The dependency on gzip can be removed.
>>
>> Also, the second derivation is okay, but kind of wasteful: it only
>> serves to move the file in a directory so the patch-application logic
>> can work.
>
> Of course it would be better if the patch logic would recognize this
> case. Then we wouldn't need the above procedure.

It depends on the maintenance cost, because it’s a rare use case, I think.

>> However, I’m unsure the patch in question really belongs here.  After
>> all, there’s just one file, and additionally it’s called ‘constants.el’!
>> ;-)
>
> I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Could you please
> be more explicit.

[...]

>>   https://github.com/emacsmirror/constants/blob/master/constants.el
>>
>> Is the patch yours?  If yes, could you find an upstream to submit it
>> too?  If there’s no such thing, you could always become the upstream.
>> ;-)
>
> The above URL is just a snapshot of the file. No activity whatsoever.
>
> Yes, the patch is mine, following suggestions in the file itself. It
> is to make the package usable with lisp like syntax so that you don't
> get e.g.:
>
> c = 2.99...e8
>
> when you insert a constant in a scheme/lisp buffer. Isn't this project
> fanatic about scheme? ;-)

It is!  :-)

> I don't think there is an upstream. In any case I have no intention of
> becoming one.

You’re effectively becoming one, though.

Could get in touch with Carsten Dominik, for instance, and propose the
patch?

If he has no interest or is unresponsive, then we can choose to maintain
it in Guix as you propose.  But since the changes are not Guix-specific
in any way, I think our job is to first try to get it upstream.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo’.