From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Kost Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:05:36 +0300 Message-ID: <87d1q0sey7.fsf@gmail.com> References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com> <87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60832) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoRQE-00079V-Pq for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 04:05:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoRQA-0006bW-Um for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 04:05:42 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-x244.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c04::244]:34796) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aoRQA-0006bS-NE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 04:05:38 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-x244.google.com with SMTP id vk4so8119483lbb.1 for ; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 01:05:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2016 12:08:02 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Andy Wingo Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andy Wingo (2016-04-07 13:08 +0300) wrote: > On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost writes: > >> Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300 >>> Alex Kost 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. I think it is a good choice that 'patches' field takes a list of file names. For example, currently a user can do: (patches (find-my-patches "package-name")) With what you suggest, it would not be possible. -- Alex