[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches |
Date: |
Sat, 08 Jan 2022 22:34:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi!
Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:
> (arguments
> (list
> #:phases
> '(modify-phases %standard-phases
> (add-after 'unpack 'i-dont-care
> (lambda _
> (substitute* "this-file"
> (("^# some unique string, oh, careful! gotta \\(escape\\)
> this\\." m)
> (string-append m "\nI ONLY WANTED TO ADD THIS LINE!\n"))))))))
[...]
> There are a few reasons why we don’t use patches as often:
>
> 1. the source code is precious and we prefer to modify the original
> sources as little as necessary, so that users can get the source code as
> upstream intended with “guix build -S foo”. We patch the sources
> primarily to get rid of bundled source code, pre-built binaries, or
> code that encroaches on users’ freedom.
>
> 2. the (patches …) field uses patch files. These are annoying and
> inflexible. They have to be added to dist_patch_DATA in gnu/local.mk,
> and they cannot contain computed store locations. They are separate
> from the package definition, which is inconvenient.
>
> 3. snippets feel like less convenient build phases. Snippets are not
> thunked, so we can’t do some things that we would do in a build phase
> substitution. We also can’t access %build-inputs or %outputs. (I don’t
> know if we can use Gexps there.)
I agree that #1 is overrated.
As for #3, we could make ‘snippet’ thunked (a snippet can be a gexp
already). We cannot refer to build inputs there, but that’s on purpose:
snippets, like patches, are supposed to be architecture-independent and
unable to insert store file names.
[...]
> (We have something remotely related in etc/committer.scm.in, where we
> define a record describing a diff hunk.)
>
> Here’s a colour sample for the new bikeshed:
>
> (arguments
> (list
> #:patches
> #~(patch "the-file"
> ((line 10)
> (+ "I ONLY WANTED TO ADD THIS LINE"))
> ((line 3010)
> (- "maybe that’s better")
> (+ (string-append #$guix " is better"))
> (+ "but what do you think?")))))
Like Attila my first reaction was skepticism.
… but thinking about it, we could have a <computed-patch> record,
similar to the <diff-hunk> record you mention; it would be a file-like
object that, when lowered, would give an actual patch.
So you could write:
(origin
;; …
(patches (list (computed-patch
(hunk (line 10) (+ "new line") (- "old line"))))))
The good thing is that the implementation of <computed-patch> would be
entirely orthogonal, separate from the package machinery.
OTOH, if we do that, we might as well write the actual patch right away.
I wonder how frequent the pattern we’re discussing is. I know I’ve used
it a few times, but I wonder if it warrants sophisticated tooling.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches,
Ludovic Courtès <=
Re: RFC: new syntax for inline patches, Efraim Flashner, 2022/01/12