Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 11:16:07PM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote:
>> Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> writes:
>> 
>> >>        #:tests? ,(let ((s (or (%current-target-system)
>> >>                               (%current-system))))
>> >>                    (not (or (string-prefix? "aarch64" s)
>> >> -                           (string-prefix? "mips64" s))))
>> >> +                           (string-prefix? "mips64" s)
>> >> +                           (string-prefix? "powerpc64le" s))))
>> >> +
>> >
>> > we can probably change this to use cute in core-updates. I don't know if
>> > changing it here will cause rebuilds on aarch64.
>> 
>> The result of unquoting the expression will be either #t or #f,
>> depending on the system.  For an aarch64 system, the string s hasn't
>> changed (it'll still start with "aarch64", right?).  Therefore, my
>> understanding is that this change here will not alter the package
>> definition; it will still say "#:tests? #f", just like it did before, on
>> an aarch64 system.  Is there something else I'm missing?
>> 
>
> I like the way it looks better if we use something like
>
> #:tests? ,(if (any (cute string-prefix? <> (or (%current-target-system)
>                                                (%current-system)))
>                    '("aarch64" "powerpc64le" "mips64"))
>             '#f '#t)

Both forms achieve the same result.  I honestly think either would be
fine.  Therefore, I don't intend to change the commit corresponding to
this specific patch.  However, if you went and changed it per above, I
wouldn't mind at all.

-- 
Chris