From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Subject: Re: =?utf-8?B?4oCYc25pcHBldOKAmQ==?= in <origin>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:13:39 -0500
Message-ID: <87mwlfrknw.fsf@netris.org>
References: <87ob6gpd5k.fsf@karetnikov.org>
	<20131023115728.GA17339@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr>
	<87iow8km91.fsf_-_@karetnikov.org> <87eh6tk75p.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87a9hfq1df.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87r4ars8sn.fsf@netris.org>
	<87wqkjavxf.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36980)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1Venl3-0005SM-GF
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:14:06 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mhw@netris.org>) id 1Venky-0007rQ-5Q
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 10:14:01 -0500
In-Reply-To: <87wqkjavxf.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Fri, 08 Nov 2013 14:02:20 +0100")
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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes:

> Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:
>
>> More generally, I'm not fond of this inflexible hardcoded approach.  I'd
>> prefer to have a set of phases (e.g. unpack, patch, delete, repack) that
>> can be selectively overridden if needed, but with some specialized
>> constructors that make things simple in the common cases.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> The rationale for me is that <origin> should remain simple, while the
> package=E2=80=99s build system would handle anything non-trivial.  For th=
at
> reason, and also because I knew it would avoid a full rebuild, I avoided
> full-blown phases.
>
> Now, I think we could replace =E2=80=98snippet=E2=80=99 by =E2=80=98phase=
s=E2=80=99.  That field would
> contain an <origin-phases> object with exactly 4 fields: unpack, patch,
> user (default to #f), and repack.
>
> In the LAPACK case, we=E2=80=99d do:
>
>   (origin
>     (uri ...)
>     (sha256 ...)
>     (phases (origin-phases (inherit %standard-origin-phases)
>               (user '(for-each delete-file ...)))))
>
> I think that would address your problem.  The set of phases would be
> fixed, though, unlike what =E2=80=98gnu-build-system=E2=80=99 does, but I=
 think that=E2=80=99s
> fine.
>
> How does that sound?

Sounds good to me!

> If that=E2=80=99s workable without triggering a full rebuild, I can look =
at it
> by 0.5.  Otherwise that=E2=80=99ll have to wait.

Indeed, let's not trigger a full rebuild :)

    Thanks,
      Mark