On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 08:34:23PM +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
> 
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 07:51:06PM +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
> >> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:08:23PM +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
> >> >> * gnu/packages/golang.scm (go-github.com-jessevdk-go-flags): New variable.
> >> >
> >> >> +         (add-after 'unpack 'rename-archive
> >> >> +           (lambda _
> >> >> +             (rename-file
> >> >> +              ,(string-append "src/github.com/jessevdk/go-flags-" version)
> >> >> +              "src/github.com/jessevdk/go-flags")
> >> >> +             #t)))))
> >> >
> >> > Should the go-build-system try to handle this automatically?
> >> 
> >> I believe this might be connected with what is in the source
> >> tarball. Without this stage, the go-flags directory is called
> >> go-flags-1.3.0, and this causes the build to fail [2].
> >
> > Oh right, Go expects you to use Git checkouts instead of release
> > tarballs. I bet it works if you do that. That kind of tarball is
> > automatically created by GitHub per tag, and can't be disabled.
> >
> >> I'm not sure about the wider context, but it would be good to handle
> >> this automatically.
> >
> > So, I think the build system doesn't need to handle this case.
> 
> Ok, would it be more appropriate to use a git checkout, rather than a
> tar archive for these packages then?

Yeah, I bet you can avoid the rename-archive phases if you use a Git
checkout.