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: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 23:54:49 +0200
Message-ID: <87wpo96q52.fsf@gnu.org>
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; 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]:32936)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aoHtB-0001MB-9s
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:54:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1aoHt7-0005PH-99
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 17:54:57 -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" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

> 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.p=
atch")))))
>>>
>>> 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.

I think =E2=80=9Cstrongly=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cpolicy=E2=80=9D are a bit=
=E2=80=A6 too strong.  ;-)

> More patches may never be added, but mapping through a list of a
> single element looks redundant for me.
>
> 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!

> P.S.  Actually, I don't like 'search-patches' name.  Better ideas?

No!  I like it.

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.

Thanks!

Ludo=E2=80=99.