From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp10.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms9.migadu.com with LMTPS id GK4XE0d4J2T6zQAASxT56A (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 02:18:15 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp10.migadu.com with LMTPS id GB1KEkd4J2R9CAAAG6o9tA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 Apr 2023 02:18:15 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D915E18983 for ; Sat, 1 Apr 2023 02:18:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piOwW-00059e-Mb; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:18:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piOwU-00059R-Mf for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:18:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1piOwU-0007J1-1f for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:18:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1piOwT-000669-Tm for guix-patches@gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:18:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#62551] Added new transformation option: --with-configure-flag Resent-From: Sarthak Shah Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2023 00:18:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 62551 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 62551@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 62551-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B62551.168030824123387 (code B ref 62551); Sat, 01 Apr 2023 00:18:01 +0000 Received: (at 62551) by debbugs.gnu.org; 1 Apr 2023 00:17:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34866 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1piOvp-000654-43 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:17:21 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-f175.google.com ([209.85.222.175]:33560) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1piOvn-00064i-IQ for 62551@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 20:17:20 -0400 Received: by mail-qk1-f175.google.com with SMTP id bs13so7458228qkb.0 for <62551@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:17:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; t=1680308234; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=x0KeU+6dEGauqEn05/OOsgon1Jz+nsrZMZIwt6Zranw=; b=YaPaTJYKwO2Q+RNFkuf8w7K9pnjmG2UU0NrpD1dCqADiZ0xoLBlB031TKYsnCKXviS yOXPv9UTOiK6YwlgnIHojpDb+1jlqE9A72UdXkFoSS3BHVxab4cwoX2M4UKg9hrRLxMc FO3hZUykKpHyqFMp+4XjAwgiIRLLtm8VrLvthk0gH8NQZ5cHelKMlfnXmGAPFJXn2XCi WNB0yG3omgqLi8ZffGvvQ+Kts/i69R83lp4zkCyEfWemlPf2y0Oxg7E9PuTVwWxQaf4P XMAS9d9tbDkE1GkqNOHKiOtgldLp+blN0cOCBAPIaxiRFeE2iuhLTCWomAQKDAQw3l4x O0KA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; t=1680308234; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=x0KeU+6dEGauqEn05/OOsgon1Jz+nsrZMZIwt6Zranw=; b=UeduXv4F9wMn/ZLVB6UZ0PYeUbohogSWrzXMw2GeC3t/kdtgpI7W1jLwue2sY6hpx6 T6BVmQbi/jundLsA14pkJ47ra3XqGHBqR13Whw6ApLPliu7Gs3QcrWUv06BlxbHNmrwB vKU7yDzCSnvoJbHqFrE7RABfKf0ZfNeyLzgZoTkPV8EZnLI5DFLkYgbe3gZZd1Ovb3ow 4Xn2uxxvP8CB07er5hQzETQiQKfEBtrPbuSDeerQxri6XNEw5rLfSeR1jboxJ5KzU5yt 2N8IAjYqmon6tWxCFWax2ZYUjzcuUZ0Q8E+EzLeLym5X2aNl9E892EkN7eqWAxnlAlSm cZcA== X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV3sk/yMuGAckb/BszubaMZhCZQTKAGynj5Yin/MLS8n3stg9tG jYIJ+FL5Xrx5r3kyWwrJLMWow+FTTnfKfVmv60mT/LalbW0H3g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set9xi1c7nypzQLh51r4aaBnM1ZgbzthVIT+DrDvlS764pwAUbzpQTBNL808IRww6ZtdbuUBLvrL5OTz+hiKcwiQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:44d5:b0:746:b32:a43d with SMTP id y21-20020a05620a44d500b007460b32a43dmr6644257qkp.11.1680308233693; Fri, 31 Mar 2023 17:17:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87355l5cbt.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87355l5cbt.fsf@gnu.org> From: Sarthak Shah Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2023 05:47:00 +0530 Message-ID: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000061ef5f05f83b3f29" X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1680308295; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=sDuF+iplCSurVIZBZxKrPisYZRaoxhfJXLjz5PSO1TMpmX3lx8Rx1J7ipWkoxr3KpIXazF NzlC8s/zrEalYN1IKa31zp2cGDQXpW5UkBuUsJkSatdxMxOlnT7BokZZ78+nN6DwM7q0xI y3fOUw6D3VcPIPICjc5X8YNGeUf39WVUhbQiSYwIwdZ6jZPUQnKSMEq1IdOt1GrjlxKrHO kk+KQxr9WIAXv/elb4k0B/xwVQtEknaZsdB+tRTj/dpgIT7JJCrRsuUSEothhRr7M8r9NG dDiOfNhgnsv+YpHX0wPK6i97rkmpDwLRA6ASkBc45jD2TVjdHkC4OApmhyr97g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=YaPaTJYK; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1680308295; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post: dkim-signature; bh=x0KeU+6dEGauqEn05/OOsgon1Jz+nsrZMZIwt6Zranw=; b=K8cbmKJZHqL9xSiHkTqo6tv9KO0owii0qaNMWp8m63YEjO9H832ahaj0RNB/oszvDINa45 SLIrCYRU1p0PvIfNYoN6UeiuAmbzZcK+h7lG4NvBz80ZvgB2F739Xz04IRbsSeQQOxlM7i kw2PMi0Q0cOyI/ZCwLvEi55To1hEW5Gckz5uhKBgsBC+rzK/kD87JQKZOd01gvL8GULdXb E8qjAEHD5s2uJC6UvRNMGx4VcBSQdAbOypnjhrxRdvUb5iANl+dMzOghJf6kUdT3t0bdUh FJ7Ua0CL3DRt03pC3KmKdr1VCt8TNEqtRhdh6wPzi+rCX5fVleFPNq2YAKmsjg== Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=YaPaTJYK; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Spam-Score: -2.62 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: D915E18983 X-TUID: UnW9KyOcfkxs --00000000000061ef5f05f83b3f29 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Ludovic, Thanks for the comments! > =E2=80=9CNowadays=E2=80=9D we=E2=80=99d use gexps, like so: > #~(cons* #$extra-flags #$list-of-flags) Noted, I will follow this in the updated patch. > This seems to be pasted from somewhere else; we might want to factorize it (not your fault of course, but something to keep in mind.) It was indeed copied over from the with-patches segment, as I thought it would be useful to check if a configure-flag is being passed again. I think it is not particularly necessary as we assume that the user knows what they are doing when they are using transforms, so I will omit it in the updated patch. > In general, the =E2=80=98name=E2=80=99 field of build systems is purely i= nformational and I would suggest not relying on it. Yes, and I've factored that in in the current patch- I have obtained the actual 'name' parameters of each of the given build systems through grepping. However, I agree with you in thinking that it might not be necessary at all- I wrote this as a 'stopgap' of sorts anyways. I would like to update it with a sophisticated checking mechanism at a later date that actually checks if the build system supports configure-flags if necessary. > Have you been able to test it on actual packages? (I haven=E2=80=99t take= n the time yet.) This is the part where I've been having the most trouble actually; I haven't been able to find suitable methods for testing this, so for now I've used two methods for testing if it works: 1) printing the arguments of the rewritten package record with display 2) comparing the hashes of patches built with and without configure-flags Both tests seem to agree that it is working, however I would really appreciate more rigorous testing by someone else or suggestions on how to test it more rigorously. For one, I have been unable to actually check if a feature is getting added/removed by adding configure-flags because I haven't been able to find a suitable package to test it with. If possible, that would be a very clear indication of it working. > What we=E2=80=99d like to have, in addition to this, is two things: > ... > Could you give it a try? Sure, I will include these changes with the updated patch. I will try to submit it in about a week, as I would like to test it more rigorously first. Happy hacking! Sarthak (cel7t) --00000000000061ef5f05f83b3f29 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<= div>
Hey Ludovic,
Thanks for the comments!

> =E2=80=9CNowa= days=E2=80=9D we=E2=80=99d use gexps, like so:
>=C2=A0 #~(cons* #$ext= ra-flags #$list-of-flags)
Noted, I will follow this in the updated= patch.

> This seems to be pasted from somewhere else; we might w= ant to factorize it (not your fault of course, but something to keep in min= d.)
It was indeed copied over from the with-patches segment, as I = thought it would be useful to check if a configure-flag is being passed aga= in. I think it is not particularly necessary as we assume that the user kno= ws what they are doing when they are using transforms, so I will omit it in= the updated patch.

> In general, the =E2=80=98name=E2=80=99 fiel= d of build systems is purely informational and I would suggest not relying = on it.
Yes, and I've factored that in in the current patch- I = have obtained the actual 'name' parameters of each of the given bui= ld systems through grepping. However, I agree with you in thinking that it = might not be necessary at all- I wrote this as a 'stopgap' of sorts= anyways. I would like to update it with a sophisticated checking mechanism= at a later date that actually checks if the build system supports configur= e-flags if necessary.

> Have you been able to test it on ac= tual packages? (I haven=E2=80=99t taken the
time yet.)
This is the part where I've been having the most tr= ouble actually; I haven't been able to find suitable methods for testin= g this, so for now I've used two methods for testing if it works:
1) printing the arguments of the rewritten package record with display<= br>
2) comparing the hashes of patches built with and without configur= e-flags
Both tests seem to agree that it is working, however I wou= ld really appreciate more rigorous testing by someone else or suggestions o= n how to test it more rigorously.
For one, I have been unable= to actually check if a feature is getting added/removed by adding configur= e-flags because I haven't been able to find a suitable package to test = it with.
If possible, that would be a very clear indication of it worki= ng.

> What we=E2=80=99d like to have, in addition to t= his, is two things:
> ...
> Could you give it a try?
Sure, I will include the= se changes with the updated patch.

I will try to submit it in = about a week, as I would like to test it more rigorously first.

=
Happy hacking!
Sarthak (cel7t)
--00000000000061ef5f05f83b3f29--