From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33278) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8v2D-0005Wx-UL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 16:50:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8v2A-0004tc-Sy for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 16:50:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36501) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8v2A-0004tY-Or for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 16:50:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8v2A-0006cz-G5 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 16:50:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26805: [PATCH] gs-fonts: add missing podule imports Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <20170506154035.23664-1-slyfox@inbox.ru> <87pofi8h6p.fsf@gnu.org> <20170509213630.7c81b553@sf> <877f1pvsfu.fsf@gnu.org> <20170510214141.60fe16d4@sf> Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 22:49:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20170510214141.60fe16d4@sf> (Sergei Trofimovich's message of "Wed, 10 May 2017 21:41:41 +0100") Message-ID: <87inl7nmpq.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Sergei Trofimovich Cc: 26805@debbugs.gnu.org Hi! Sergei Trofimovich skribis: > On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:53:41 +0200 > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > >> What about adding (srfi srfi-1) to =E2=80=98%default-modules=E2=80=99 in= (guix >> build-system gnu)? It=E2=80=99s generally useful anyway. >>=20 >> (Alternately, we could rename SRFI-1=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99 = in (guix build utils), >> so we=E2=80=99d still be matching a literal, but we=E2=80=99d have probl= ems in places >> that use both (guix build utils) and (srfi srfi-1).) > > I'd personally say the less magic reexports - the better. It's ok to go > through all of core-updates and fix missing imports. I wouldn=E2=80=99t call it =E2=80=9Cmagic=E2=80=9D. It=E2=80=99s just abou= t providing a useful set of bindings in =E2=80=98%default-modules=E2=80=99, to save typing essentially. Also, for this =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99 issue, I=E2=80=99m pretty sure we= =E2=80=99re going to miss many occurrences no matter what (same problem as with the =E2=80=98_=E2=80=99 bi= nding from (guix ui), which wasn=E2=80=99t resolved until I finally realized that rena= ming it would have saved a lot of time=E2=80=A6) Note that there=E2=80=99s also the second solution above. Thoughts? > Would be nice the all those syntactic errors could be caught with somethi= ng > lighter-weight than full 'guix build'. The problem is that this is =E2=80=9Cbuild-side code=E2=80=9D and we can=E2= =80=99t really tell much about it until we=E2=80=99ve assembled it in on of those -guile-builder files. > I'm afraid I have no idea how symbol visibility works in guix as I'm > still struggling to find which code builds and evaluates '*-guile-builder= ' files. > > For example what is the difference between > (use-modules .... > and > (arguments '(#:modules > ? Hopefully the intro of the =E2=80=9CG-Expressions=E2=80=9D section can shed= some light on this, specifically on the build-side vs. host-side story. Otherwise let me know. :-) =E2=80=9C(arguments '(#:modules =E2=80=A6))=E2=80=9D specifies modules in s= cope on the build side. HTH! Ludo=E2=80=99.