Halo! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >>>> Alternately, we could change ‘input-changes’ to ‘inputs’, which would be >>>> absolute, not relative, and thus ‘package-update’ would take care of >>>> calling ‘changed-inputs’ etc. >>> >>> That would also work, but I think I prefer an updater to report changes >>> rather than a new list of inputs. >> >> OTOH if we return a complete list of inputs, then we don’t have to worry >> about the cost of ‘changed-inputs’ since that would only be called on >> demand; also there’d be a single call site for ‘changed-inputs’. > > The potentially expensive part is to get the inputs, though. Getting a > list of new inputs means that the importer needs to be run. For CRAN > packages this requires downloading the tarball and unpacking parts of > it. Oh right. Then perhaps could have a separate ‘inputs’ field, which would be either #f or that procedure to fetch the list of inputs for the given package. Does that make sense? (I’m thinking out loud…) Ludo’.