From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:41:34 -0500
Message-ID: <ce2643e8e548a8c507e68e5324d6140a@openmailbox.org>
References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com>
	<d27ed822c0d234e324a6f01c27c5b2ae@openmailbox.org>
	<87wpo9zqy5.fsf_-_@gmail.com> <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32975)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>) id 1aoB8G-0000gl-5m
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:42:04 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>) id 1aoB8A-0005z1-Ep
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:42:04 -0400
Received: from mail2.openmailbox.org ([62.4.1.33]:37834)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ericbavier@openmailbox.org>) id 1aoB8A-0005yt-6p
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 10:41:58 -0400
In-Reply-To: <877fg9bukd.fsf@igalia.com>
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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Andy Wingo <wingo@igalia.com>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>

On 2016-04-07 05:08, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> 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.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.

Sure.  I'm persuaded.

> 
> 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.

This sounds like a promising idea to me.

-- 
`~Eric