From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Bavier Subject: Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 09:41:34 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1459917181-19626-1-git-send-email-ericbavier@openmailbox.org> <87wpobvssk.fsf@gmail.com> <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: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32975) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) 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 ) 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 ) 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." 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Alex Kost On 2016-04-07 05:08, Andy Wingo 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' >>>> 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