[bug#37642] [PATCH] gnu: Add filters

[Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via <guix-patches@gnu.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3661 bytes --]

Jesse,

Jesse Gibbons 写道：
> That review was a bit of a mess. Let's see if I can rephrase 
> what you want,
> in a human-friendly format (no emacs involved):

Yes, I'm so sorry.  It looked fine while writing; I'm not actually 
on crack.

>>      * gnu/packages/filters.scm: New file.
>>      * gnu/local.mk: Add it.
>>      * gnu/packages/cvassistant.scm (filters): New variable.
> Spot my "commit message template" remnants!
>
> You want me to put it into either games.scm or toys.scm, 
> preferrably
> toys.scm, for the sake of organization.

Yes.  File naming and package categorization are an impromptu 
mess.  Single-package files exist, most of them probably shouldn't 
*or* they should be the norm as in Nix.  I suspect the reason that 
Guix diverged was mainly technical: many things about Guix can 
(still) be explained by ‘Guile does a bad thing otherwise’.

>> I had previously started a discussion on the guix-devel list 
>> with a similar
> concern and was convinced that it is fine to have some packages 
> isolated in
> their own files. That's why I put rednotebook cv-assistant 
> isolated in their
> own sources.

Sure.  It's impossible to document the current scheme because it's 
self-contradictory.  ‘Feels wrong to nckx’ is no great argument 
but it's all you're going to get here.  Even the name ‘filter’ 
would only make sense in the context of this package (hey, gzip is 
a filter too…).

This has officially got to much attention now :-)

> However, since you asked, and there are two different files it
> would fit in, I will put filters in toys.scm. I'll leave it to 
> you to
> convince the others that packages like cmatrix, cowsay, 
> fortune-mod, and no-
> more-secrets should be moved to toys because they are not games.

As much as I ♥ irrelevant things, that would just be noise.

> Make sure these are indented when I add a new file.
> I guess indent-code.el doesn't look outside the package 
> definition...

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.  Must be how we subtly force 
you to switch to emacs.

> Use a patch instead or move this to the source's snippet so 
> kenny is removed
> from the raw source.

A patch would contain a ‘negative’ verbatim copy of the non-free 
code so isn't an option here.

>> +         #:tests? #f))
> clarify we have no tests suite

Yep.  Ideally that comment would be redundant because we'd never 
flat-out disable tests in packages that have them, but we do.

>> +The GNU project hosts a similar collection of filters, the GNU
>> talkfilters.  Due
>> +to copyright concerns and difficulty in communication between
>> maintainers, these
>> +collections have not been merged.")
> You want me to remove this.
> I think it's appropriate to say something about gnu talkfilters 
> and note
> that this is not the same package, given that filters and 
> talkfilters
> packages are often confused with each other on the internet,

OK.  I didn't know they were often confused.  Would it make sense 
to add it to GNU's, too?

> but I will remove the last sentence.

Great.  It's the one that bothered me.

>  If the comments go beyond 80 characters I will move the 
>  comments above the license.

For such whole-line comments you *would* use ‘;;’, start with a 
capital letter, and end with a full stop…

> indent-code.el missed these comments.

Sounds like indent-code.el needs love from someone who likes 
writing elisp.

> Am I missing anything?

Not that I'm aware of.  Sorry again for the beastly formatting of 
my original message.

Kind regards,

T G-R

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]