From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
Received: from mp11.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by ms5.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id gBnXNJxgaGLVDQAAbAwnHQ
	(envelope-from <gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:14:04 +0200
Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS
	id YEACNZxgaGKQUgEA9RJhRA
	(envelope-from <gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:14:04 +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 CE3B530DF1
	for <larch@yhetil.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 23:14:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost ([::1]:35996 helo=lists1p.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1njSVT-0006RE-Vd
	for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:13:59 -0400
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53710)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>)
 id 1njSVE-0006NJ-JV
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:13:45 -0400
Received: from sender4-of-o50.zoho.com ([136.143.188.50]:21099)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
 (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from <rekado@elephly.net>)
 id 1njSVB-0008S8-FO
 for gwl-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 17:13:43 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1651007617; cv=none; 
 d=zohomail.com; s=zohoarc; 
 b=cxiSQx/2iso2JcBYO7by1BCLt5ca0VjPRxNfnMT2Tb3RCbSUvvO4XvWxQWR9PfxBQP6s7KiqwJziJJeRv4Y9De+73YQZUaEIfCAbNQPI6tsWZn0A0S3INP8Gz/L9dDtmR1PMNIXxyD32QBeVSbRP+F8kcW4BOOQ9LGkrcXwjdk8=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zohomail.com;
 s=zohoarc; t=1651007617;
 h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To;
 bh=mISd02zPnEWUirwPeUghFRjk3N7vUP7HBXKdR2N3aHY=; 
 b=bWsk2w7PI7Yd/B515L3GqXVXq3DYmnEICK8JN1sFXx0IGL2MRDRAwRF95RRfGs+tqrgFnXv1zvCoNizSqEdfRl1TSX/z1bihkARHxA1qW4P/S4H2uEnI/TZOwIRpegDghAB5OxitQAvq1dDQS/zbOmIkw/7Z8fVryyyXhZTRrgY=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.zohomail.com;
 dkim=pass  header.i=elephly.net;
 spf=pass  smtp.mailfrom=rekado@elephly.net;
 dmarc=pass header.from=<rekado@elephly.net>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1651007617; 
 s=zoho; d=elephly.net; i=rekado@elephly.net;
 h=References:From:From:To:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:Subject:Date:Date:In-reply-to:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:Reply-To;
 bh=mISd02zPnEWUirwPeUghFRjk3N7vUP7HBXKdR2N3aHY=;
 b=fOLzIxikHDFwJKIUTwcgJPS9sSYUdkVGYHjtvHfXmBkEm3MpaGJlei4iwIfz/MwJ
 E60tYb4lzyOoYWFoty2n8xzOXnd6uXiAp4rVleFSpiAYRftI0oF/piPW6JJlWKs5zPz
 uSpMJP9O50+I8Gde/QeI8uvStQsrcRgv4b+8D24Y=
Received: from localhost (56-111-142-46.pool.kielnet.net [46.142.111.56]) by
 mx.zohomail.com with SMTPS id 1651007614070442.41366776587984;
 Tue, 26 Apr 2022 14:13:34 -0700 (PDT)
References: <20220421195158.22407-1-olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
 <20220422184359.7929-1-olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
 <20220422184359.7929-2-olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
 <87ilqv66yd.fsf@elephly.net> <875ymvhds4.fsf@laura>
User-agent: mu4e 1.6.10; emacs 28.0.50
From: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>
To: Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] packages: Support for full Guix specification
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:30:21 +0200
In-reply-to: <875ymvhds4.fsf@laura>
X-URL: https://elephly.net
X-PGP-Key: https://elephly.net/rekado.pubkey
X-PGP-Fingerprint: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
Message-ID: <875ymv5z0l.fsf@elephly.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-ZohoMailClient: External
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=136.143.188.50; envelope-from=rekado@elephly.net;
 helo=sender4-of-o50.zoho.com
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1,
 DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1,
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Spam_action: no action
X-BeenThere: gwl-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <gwl-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gwl-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:gwl-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gwl-devel>,
 <mailto:gwl-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Cc: gwl-devel@gnu.org
Errors-To: gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org
Sender: "gwl-devel" <gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org>
X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN
X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org
X-Migadu-Country: US
ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org;
	s=key1; t=1651007644;
	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:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help:
	 list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature;
	bh=mISd02zPnEWUirwPeUghFRjk3N7vUP7HBXKdR2N3aHY=;
	b=S/YXAJ5B/cKaJhqNriYUUA3tX8jDIuizXlHCzoxu0/OGC/wGFkD6TJJR/ElXSiVs1w5GQK
	KVUU9lB5YB4pf9fqO6TC8wLxWwTlYY3QeRy+cPAne7THv5EK6/elrXMEfuh4rNL8AtrtQI
	XgK7Xv9TSS4JHHDFcCrsFcFS4PAgfHQhzeEV3tJvDQuZpTXebtNdNMeBH6mDFHXKcXzxwh
	k1+6CV6xRDF/WMw+5lPzFCADm4XZjA7De8W4oLA5i1dx3Q+V1dT92Gp9iW/F4FPQUjBFkr
	Z/SAaL6jMb371XZeiUEiNdQx8lVcthW06jOHA4G5NGGpyHURGFKkkvGs5cwJcw==
ARC-Seal: i=2; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1651007644; a=rsa-sha256; cv=pass;
	b=WmpaufqrwMFZMoeVgJf7Nar3sooHUgcceZsFZzF0WiCsrTVwtJpGbMjB9s55rHGt0HrPZZ
	Wm+IdOGfj2zxKVPkbMuW0TOt5pZdOkWmSabeOcJIEuxabNUyU+YbXSLD1tNn1unsrmIb8K
	AvDhP80Vfi51ewyxVi+eEowYkZSWjbnmuO39SMLm7zDGzzQzqqORrZGgkYRs+DcuFfZT0Y
	BxS3z4WYC9KUi+gRQxvYqtu8iuGgxZj7O4DB++fmlrN4ftinlzTiiEJ97rCAYFYgNDT/kq
	NpfPIxSDNeTS53C/aZsdYd4ojyFYpv4ZeHOC2EduDQSMnjfwsKAfdcGHPtgnXQ==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2;
	aspmx1.migadu.com;
	dkim=pass header.d=elephly.net header.s=zoho header.b=fOLzIxik;
	arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1");
	dmarc=none;
	spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"
X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -6.10
Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com;
	dkim=pass header.d=elephly.net header.s=zoho header.b=fOLzIxik;
	arc=pass ("zohomail.com:s=zohoarc:i=1");
	dmarc=none;
	spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="gwl-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"
X-Migadu-Queue-Id: CE3B530DF1
X-Spam-Score: -6.10
X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com
X-TUID: cKhT1LJapdot

Hi again,

Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> writes:

>>> +          ((first . rest) first)
>>> +          (_ (raise (condition
>>> +                     (&gwl-package-error
>>> +                      (package-spec (string-append name+version output=
)))))))
>>> +        output))
>>
>> I=E2=80=99d prefer to have this return multiple values instead of a comp=
ound
>> value.
>
> With (values ...)?  That's what (gnu packages) does I think.

I think I missed how you intended for this to work.  IIUC you=E2=80=99re le=
tting
LOOKUP-PACKAGE return a list of a package and an output because that
will end up as an argument to PACKAGES->MANIFEST (in (@ (gwl processes)
process->script)).

PACKAGES->MANIFEST has this docstring:

 "Return a list of manifest entries, one for each item listed in PACKAGES.
Elements of PACKAGES can be either package objects or package/string tuples
denoting a specific output of a package."

So that=E2=80=99s why you=E2=80=99re making it return a tuple of package/st=
ring tuples =E2=80=93
for compatibility with that procedure.

My comment about returning multiple values or a record value totally
misses your intent.  Sorry!  Now I get it.

> I do think it would be better to wait for (guix inferior) to support
> selecting outputs.  However, I do need selection of outputs for my use
> case right now!  Specificaly, I need to have debug symbols of many
> packages.  The quick hack above does the work for me but I understand
> that it would be preferable if (guix inferior) has support for outputs
> instead.

I understand.

So =E2=80=A6 I think we can figure something out that won=E2=80=99t be far =
removed from
what you proposed.  I=E2=80=99d probably split it into smaller procedures,
though, to make it a bit more obvious what=E2=80=99s going on.

Let=E2=80=99s see the diff again=E2=80=A6

> -(define (lookup-package specification)
> +(define (%lookup-package name+version output)
> +  (list (match (apply lookup-inferior-packages
> +                      (cons (current-guix) (string-split name+version #\=
@)))
> +          ((first . rest) first)
> +          (_ (raise (condition
> +                     (&gwl-package-error
> +                      (package-spec (string-append name+version output))=
)))))
> +        output))
>
> +(define* (lookup-package specification #:optional (output "out"))
>    (log-event 'guix (G_ "Looking up package `~a'~%") specification)
> -  (match (lookup-inferior-packages (current-guix) specification)
> -    ((first . rest) first)
> -    (_ (raise (condition
> -               (&gwl-package-error
> -                (package-spec specification)))))))
> +  (match (string-split specification #\:)
> +    ((name+version sub-drv) (%lookup-package name+version sub-drv))
> +    ((name+version) (simple-package (%lookup-package name+version output=
)))))

I=E2=80=99m struggling to figure out a cleaner way to do this=E2=80=A6
Why are we processing the specification *and* accept an optional OUTPUT
argument?  It seems to me that SUB-DRV and OUTPUT *should* be the same,
but it=E2=80=99s possible to call LOOKUP-PACKAGE in a way that they differ,
which doesn=E2=80=99t make much sense to me.

Another thing that bothers me a bit is all that string splitting; once
for version, again for the output.  The (guix ui) module has
PACKAGE-SPECIFICATION->NAME+VERSION+OUTPUT, which is dedicated for this
task.  It returns multiple values; let=E2=80=99s use LET* from SRFI-71.  Wh=
at do
you think of this?

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(import (srfi srfi-71)
(define (lookup-package specification)
  "Look up SPECIFICATION in an inferior and return a matching package.  If =
the
specification declares a specific output return a tuple consisting of the
package value and the output.  If no matching package is found, raise a
&GWL-PACKAGE-ERROR."
   (log-event 'guix (G_ "Looking up package `~a'~%") specification)
   (let* ((name version output (package-specification->name+version+output =
specification))
          (package
            (match (lookup-inferior-packages (current-guix) name version)
              ((first . rest) first)
              (_ (raise (condition
                         (&gwl-package-error
                          (package-spec specification))))))))
     (if output
         (list package output)
         package)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

What do you think of that?

>  (define (valid-package? val)
> -  (or (package? val)
> -      (inferior-package? val)))
> +  (or
> +   (and (list? val)
> +        (valid-package? (car val))
> +        (string? (cadr val)))
> +   (package? val)
> +   (inferior-package? val)))
> +

I suggest rewriting this whole thing with MATCH so that the structure of
VAL becomes apparent.  Perhaps something like this?

   (match
     ((maybe-package (? string? output))
      (valid-package? maybe-package))
     (_
      (or (package? val)
          (inferior-package? val))))

> +(define (simple-package pkg)
> +  (if (list? pkg) (car pkg) pkg))

I still don=E2=80=99t like this :)  Not only the implementation but the fact
that it appears to be needed.  At least implementation-wise I=E2=80=99d pre=
fer
something like this:

(define (just-package maybe-package+output)
  (match maybe-package+output
    (((? package? package) (? string? output)) package)
    ((? package? package) package)
    (_ (error "what is this?"))))

There are a few places where we need to be careful that we=E2=80=99re deali=
ng
with the right type and that we handle both cases equally well: when a
tuple is encountered and when a plain package value is encountered.

Ideally we=E2=80=99d also have tests for this.

What do you think of all this?

--=20
Ricardo