[bug#45409] [PATCH v3 3/3] guix: Split (guix substitutes) from (guix scripts substitute).

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:

> This means there's a module for working with substitutes, rather than all the
> code sitting in the script. The need for this can be seen with the weather and
> challenge scripts, that now don't have to use code from the substitute script,
> but can instead use the substitute module.
>
> The separation here between the actual functionality of the substitute script
> and the underlying functionality used both there and elsewhere should make
> maintenance easier moving forward.
>
> This commit just moves code, none of the code should have been changed
> significantly.
>
> * guix/scripts/substitute.scm (%narinfo-cache-directory, %narinfo-ttl,
> %narinfo-negative-ttl, %narinfo-transient-error-ttl, %unreachable-hosts,
> %max-cached-connections): Move variables to (guix substitutes).
> (narinfo-cache-file, cached-narinfo, cache-narinfo!, narinfo-request, at-most,
> http-multiple-get, read-to-eof, narinfo-from-file,
> open-connection-for-uri/maybe, fetch-narinfos, lookup-narinfos,
> lookup-narinfos/diverse, open-connection-for-uri/cached,
> call-with-cached-connection): Move procedures to (guix substitutes).
> (with-cached-connection): Move syntax rule to (guix substitutes).
> * guix/substitutes.scm: New file.
> * Makefile.am (MODULES): Add it.
> * po/guix/POTFILES.in: Add 'guix/substitutes.scm'.

I’m reluctant starting this new module while it still contains
single-short-lived-process assumptions (connection caching & co.).

How about proceeding like this:

  1. Move ‘http-multiple-get’ to (guix http-client).

  2. Postpone the (guix substitute) bit to a separate patch series to
     leave us the time to polish things a bit and removes the
     single-process assumptions, or just move fewer things to (guix
     substitutes).

You could push (guix narinfo) in the meantime since I think that one is
almost ready.

How does that sound?  Am I being too cautious?

Thanks again! :-)

Ludo’.