From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>
Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:08:02 +0200
Message-ID: <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com>
References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com>
	<d27ed822c0d234e324a6f01c27c5b2ae@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55938)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@igalia.com>) id 1ao6rE-0001Ge-6t
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 06:08:13 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@igalia.com>) id 1ao6r9-0003GX-7e
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 06:08:12 -0400
Received: from pb-sasl0.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:50821
	helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <wingo@igalia.com>) id 1ao6r9-0003GN-3r
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 06:08:07 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Thu, 07
	Apr 2016 12:52:18 +0300")
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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:

> Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300
>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>> > +         "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4"))
>>> > +       (patches (map search-patch '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch")))))
>>>
>>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here.
>>
>> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later.  The
>> same has been used in other packages.
>
> I strongly disagree with this policy.  More patches may never be added,
> but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.

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.

Andy