From: Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>
To: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian@mgsn.dev>, guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2021 23:20:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <473ea45f79b94ff04327f3fdf691dd8e4a85f7ba.camel@telenet.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8635qp1j6k.fsf@mgsn.dev>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3018 bytes --]
Sarah Morgensen schreef op di 31-08-2021 om 12:57 [-0700]:
> Hello Guix,
>
> Currently, there are about 1500 packages defined like this:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> (define-public sbcl-feeder
> (let ((commit "b05f517d7729564575cc809e086c262646a94d34")
> (revision "1"))
> (package
> [...])))
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I feel like there are some issues with this idiom (in no particular
> order):
>
> 1. When converting between this idiom and regularly versioned packages,
> the git diff shows the whole package changing because of the indentation
> change.
>
> 2. We cannot get at the source location for the definition of 'commit' or
> 'revision'. This would be useful for updating these packages with `guix
> refresh -u`. There is a proposed patch [0] to work around this, but it
> *is* a workaround.
>
> 3. Packages inheriting from it lose the definitions. For actual fields,
> we have e.g. `(package-version this-package)`, but we have no equivalent
> for these.
>
> 4. Horizontal space is at a premium, and an extra two spaces here and
> there add up. (Personally, I think we could do with a
> define-public-package macro to save another two spaces, but that's for
> another day...)
>
> 5. The closest thing we have to a standardized way of generating
> versions for these packages is `(version (git-version "0.0.0" revision
> commit))`. We can do better than that boilerplate.
Suggestion: extend the 'version' field. More specifically,
introduce a new record <full-version>, like this:
(define-record-type* <extended-version> extended-version make-extended-version
extended-version? this-version
;; something like 1.2.3 (TODO better name)
(base extended-version-base)
(revision extended-version-revision)
(commit extended-version-commit))
(define (version->string version)
(match version
((? string?) version)
(($ <extended-version> ...) code from original git-version and hg-version)))
;; TODO:
;; adjust git-file-name and hg-file-name to accept <extended-version> records
;; (as well as the ‘old style’ for compatibility)
To be used like:
(define-public sbcl-feeder
(name "sbcl-feeder")
(version (extended-version
(base "1.0.0")
(revision 1)
(commit "b05f517d7729564575cc809e086c262646a94d34")))
(source
(origin
(method git-fetch)
(uri (git-reference ...)
(url ...)
;; git-reference needs to be extended to retrieve the commit from the version
(version version)))
(file-name (git-file-name "feeder" version))
(sha256 ...)))
[...])
That should address 1,2,3,4 and 5.
One problem with this approach is that most users of 'package-version' expect
it to return a string. Maybe adding a keyword argument '#:full-version? #t/#f'
defaulting to #f would work?
Greetings,
Maxime.
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-31 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-31 19:57 Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages? Sarah Morgensen
2021-08-31 21:20 ` Maxime Devos [this message]
2021-09-01 12:11 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-01 16:29 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 13:33 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-01 16:39 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 18:34 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 14:09 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-02 14:20 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 14:34 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-01 19:48 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-01 21:47 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-02 13:32 ` Maxime Devos
2021-09-02 7:53 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-02 9:25 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-01 10:55 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-01 15:37 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-01 16:50 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-02 16:51 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-02 17:29 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 16:11 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-03 16:35 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 16:57 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-03 20:03 ` Xinglu Chen
2021-09-04 21:00 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-08 21:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-09-02 17:08 ` Leo Famulari
2021-09-08 21:28 ` Ludovic Courtès
2021-09-08 22:21 ` Jonathan McHugh
2021-09-08 22:38 ` Leo Famulari
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-09-03 5:51 Sarah Morgensen
2021-09-03 21:14 Sarah Morgensen
2021-09-03 22:11 ` Liliana Marie Prikler
2021-09-04 12:32 ` Taylan Kammer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=473ea45f79b94ff04327f3fdf691dd8e4a85f7ba.camel@telenet.be \
--to=maximedevos@telenet.be \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=iskarian@mgsn.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.