From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 11:22:08 +0300
Message-ID: <8760vrtcnj.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com>
	<d27ed822c0d234e324a6f01c27c5b2ae@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <87wpo96q52.fsf@gnu.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51729)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1aoo9k-0005Wt-ND
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 04:22:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <alezost@gmail.com>) id 1aoo9h-0005yK-Go
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 04:22:12 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87wpo96q52.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\=
	\=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:54:49 +0200")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2016-04-08 00:54 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
[...]
>> Talking about how we specify package patches currently, I think it would
>> be better to do it in a more clean and general way.  What about adding
>> the following macro to (gnu packages)?
>>
>>   (define-syntax-rule (search-patches file-name ...)
>>     "Return a list of patches for each FILE-NAME."
>>     (list (search-patch file-name) ...))
>>
>> So instead of things like this:
>>
>>   (list (search-patch "foo.patch")
>>         (search-patch "bar.patch"))
>>
>> or this:
>>
>>   (map search-patch '("foo.patch"
>>                       "bar.patch"))
>>
>> we'll have:
>>
>>   (search-patches "foo.patch"
>>                   "bar.patch")
>
> I like it!

OK, I've sent the patches for this change.

> Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com> skribis:
>
>> What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the
>> items in the list if the path is not absolute?  Use
>> `absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not.
>
> FWIW I have a preference for keeping things explicit.

Another argument is 'glibc-locales' packages which has:

  (patches (cons (search-patch "glibc-locales.patch")
                 (origin-patches (package-source glibc))))

--=20
Alex