[bug#54216] [PATCH v2] gnu: shepherd-for-guix: New package for use in Guix.

["Leo Famulari" <leo@famulari.name>]

Origin snippets should only be used to remove nonfree things from the upstream source code. All other changes should use patch files or a build phase.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, at 04:14, zimoun wrote:
> Hi Attila,
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 20:42, Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> wrote:
>
>> unfortunately, it won't help us much here, because one snippet modifies
>> Makefile.am, while the other Makefile.in.
>
> Guix does not have a clear line for patching (or I am not aware of the
> update); what is going to source+snippet vs arguments+phase.  Pros and
> cons for both; basically the question is what "guix build --source"
> should return?
>
> Option source+snippet means it returns the source of what Guix really
> builds -- so many packages would not respect this rule of thumb.
>
> Option arguments+phase means it returns the real unmodified upstream
> source (modulo removal of non-free) -- so "guix shell -D foo" would
> break for many packages.
>
> Difficult tension. :-)  For most cases, not an unique answer; maybe
> that's why we do not have a clear documentation. :-)  I just mention
> it i.e., I am not saying you can do something. :-)  I am simply
> pointing that Guix does not have a clear recommendation /
> documentation where the patches should go; probably depending on their
> nature.  Well, nothing related with your patch. :-)
>
> That's said, personally, in this case, instead of having the Makefile*
> patch in 'source', I would do the patching using a phase.
>
> Cheers,
> simon