From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46474) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9wRB-0002sf-Ol for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 12:32:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9wR8-0007CS-Lb for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 12:32:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d9wR8-0007CE-IL for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 12:32:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d9wR8-0003Bk-C9 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 14 May 2017 12:32:02 -0400 Subject: bug#26805: [PATCH] gs-fonts: add missing podule imports Resent-Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 17:31:28 +0100 From: Sergei Trofimovich Message-ID: <20170514173128.28e799a1@sf> In-Reply-To: <87inl7nmpq.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20170506154035.23664-1-slyfox@inbox.ru> <87pofi8h6p.fsf@gnu.org> <20170509213630.7c81b553@sf> <877f1pvsfu.fsf@gnu.org> <20170510214141.60fe16d4@sf> <87inl7nmpq.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/jhg.ybTz/EwhzaVJE+dCOl1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" 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: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 26805@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/jhg.ybTz/EwhzaVJE+dCOl1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 11 May 2017 22:49:05 +0200 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Hi! >=20 > Sergei Trofimovich skribis: >=20 > > On Wed, 10 May 2017 13:53:41 +0200 > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > > =20 > >> 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. A bunch of python-guild-system based packages fail in a similar way. I tried reexporting 'delete' from '(guix build utils)'. It works at least for many packages I have tested. But maybe it's too broad. diff --git a/guix/build/utils.scm b/guix/build/utils.scm index e8efb0653..4bc55f219 100644 --- a/guix/build/utils.scm +++ b/guix/build/utils.scm @@ -25,21 +25,22 @@ #:use-module (srfi srfi-26) #:use-module (srfi srfi-60) #:use-module (ice-9 ftw) #:use-module (ice-9 match) #:use-module (ice-9 regex) #:use-module (ice-9 rdelim) #:use-module (ice-9 format) #:use-module (rnrs bytevectors) #:use-module (rnrs io ports) #:re-export (alist-cons - alist-delete) + alist-delete + delete) #:export (%store-directory store-file-name? strip-store-file-name package-name->name+version parallel-job-count directory-exists? executable-file? symbolic-link? call-with-ascii-input-file > >> (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 pro= blems in places > >> that use both (guix build utils) and (srfi srfi-1).) =20 > > > > I'd personally say the less magic reexports - the better. It's ok to go > > through all of core-updates and fix missing imports. =20 >=20 > I wouldn=E2=80=99t call it =E2=80=9Cmagic=E2=80=9D. It=E2=80=99s just ab= out providing a useful set of > bindings in =E2=80=98%default-modules=E2=80=99, to save typing essentiall= y. >=20 > 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 = binding from > (guix ui), which wasn=E2=80=99t resolved until I finally realized that re= naming > it would have saved a lot of time=E2=80=A6) Yeah. Having tried to edit 10 more packages I have to agree it's tedious to fix each package :) Can you explain what is the problem of renaming =E2=80=98delete=E2=80=99 fr= om srfi-1 in (guix build utils) module? How would hypothetical breakage happen? Is it because 'delete' from srfi-1 and renamed binding srfi-1 are not treated as the same binding by syntax rule? > Note that there=E2=80=99s also the second solution above. >=20 > Thoughts? --=20 Sergei --Sig_/jhg.ybTz/EwhzaVJE+dCOl1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: Цифровая подпись OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EARECAB0WIQSZKa0VG5avZRlY01hxoe52YR/zqgUCWRiGYAAKCRBxoe52YR/z qtPUAJ4xGaSSXjWnwp+AJmg722gl1Huj2wCeMOJg/V3BO33mqhPd1v6PL9VK2N8= =cCyP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/jhg.ybTz/EwhzaVJE+dCOl1--