From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2016 16:43:11 +0200 Message-ID: <87potyn8qo.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com> <87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com> <87d1q0sey7.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34542) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aou6Z-00062j-4p for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:43:19 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aou6U-0002BW-26 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:43:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87d1q0sey7.fsf@gmail.com> (Alex Kost's message of "Fri, 08 Apr 2016 11:05:36 +0300") 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: Alex Kost Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Alex Kost skribis: > 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' her= e. >>>> >>>> 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. It would still be possible, provided =E2=80=98find-my-patches=E2=80=99 retu= rns absolute file names. But yeah, there would always be this extra pass of guesswork under the hood. Ludo=E2=80=99.