From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Jul 30 14:26:20 2018 Received: (at 30809) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Jul 2018 18:26:20 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35375 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fkCs8-0003bM-8O for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:26:20 -0400 Received: from mail.lassieur.org ([83.152.10.219]:60468) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fkCs6-0003b7-Al for 30809@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 14:26:18 -0400 Received: from rodion (88.191.118.83 [88.191.118.83]) by mail.lassieur.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 64ee78a0 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO); Mon, 30 Jul 2018 18:26:15 +0000 (UTC) References: <20180723214328.18740-1-mail@cbaines.net> <20180723214328.18740-2-mail@cbaines.net> <87o9ext2b8.fsf@lassieur.org> <87zhy9kbyu.fsf@cbaines.net> User-agent: mu4e 1.0; emacs 26.1 From: =?utf-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur To: Christopher Baines Subject: Re: [bug#30809] [PATCH 2/2] services: Add Gitolite. In-reply-to: <87zhy9kbyu.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 20:26:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvog8trt.fsf@lassieur.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 30809 Cc: 30809@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Christopher Baines writes: [...] >>> +(define gitolite-setup >>> + (match-lambda >>> + (($ package user group home >>> + rc-file admin-pubkey) >>> + #~(let ((user-info (getpwnam #$user))) >>> + (use-modules (guix build utils)) -----------------(ice-9 match)----^ >>> + >>> + (simple-format #t "guix: gitolite: installing ~A\n" #$rc-file) >>> + (copy-file #$rc-file #$(string-append home "/.gitolite.rc")) >>> + >>> + (let ((admin-pubkey #$admin-pubkey) [...] >> I have a slight preference for the previous 'match' expression you used >> before, because it's used elsewhere this way and it requires less code. > > While I agree with both your points, I tried for quite a while last > weekend to get match to work, and couldn't. I couldn't even tell why it > suddenly wasn't. Unfortunately, Linux panicing when anything fails makes > debugging the system test a bit tricky. Maybe you forgot to add the (ice-9 match) module?