From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Sep 29 19:41:25 2021 Received: (at 50620) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Sep 2021 23:41:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVjCX-0002us-9g for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:41:25 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f50.google.com ([209.85.221.50]:34438) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mVjCT-0002ub-Go for 50620@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 19:41:24 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f50.google.com with SMTP id t8so6973561wri.1 for <50620@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:41:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :disposition-notification-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vV9P9xpSShjtDrMgiMj+Y4TBr3sVv/HJ52lYbNRL3E4=; b=UQGN7LSjOHL6NjZXe3YatMTWd/29lfljLBT6w0XoAkhueVvbeWjFz+yhwZKDgIQziF 2QBDOtHqaETYdrIZQ/mlvCSRxtxIZKCCkbAMQRaSZpR6N/gwL4OtEv0vdLXgE6Tp31Yw p82DjanFWW7UiVcSzbjlZuelLfZQQEMKgfk5vy1vWW4vgEeZ6XqhugWSbGSck6IcC8Um dggXAj5ZDb+Z+o7vhxloJY2OFCpOMYPNM9niBkCDPMqpvqDwOrNz0cJN2MjDBMfPcaWB 5icrHwMw8ZYJTgv/OpdqcQEfMsodcNEE8pladkVyIqkNv+45f9zLA0wir29QfLJoda3N 0jnQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references :disposition-notification-to:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vV9P9xpSShjtDrMgiMj+Y4TBr3sVv/HJ52lYbNRL3E4=; b=RLhyZmwIqzLqhD7PRj1TrYtG8g1Kx1tw2jfEB+rWjLvnCl3HS1DAZ4rqUxoIXGk6Mg E/hzoFBiBvHWPm1kd8jCRYvj59RkmaxV0wvp26Hosl7zkvU2kMDkf9UGnoYpyIxAN+hz 4r/nqSp4q0JHLhwKlx7tfenZ9cOZxVcp5o6TdYiZc4CfBT/kzh9nLHVuJcphvbFXcdoU 9/lV8PBPjHpVOrBlvcJ4g3uWgLDnVDNFeNmxNQTmi9QFQ8Nsv0Wx1ZYk6pqi5TvMOD+9 d/gdWDPs+gDPgOI6kb+VAVG1C3/1ycaJlFnGuRrEHYDBUPFBq1sAJaQepnnkvWrvVSy/ hA4Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533BQqBDPr6BUYIJeybbh4aL7Vt+n3gqyPq1oZnipiGOTZAnXTmD VVtpRABOx99GRhecbLt1G8EI9kqp+G2ZBQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8pLDIIaWjgx5+tn82LIX6kPD0B6fF1D6ojmYbsjepkUqVvvoBgqJ1Neau61r3KX+BdqpG/w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:12d0:: with SMTP id l16mr2899124wrx.139.1632958875465; Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 20sm3149937wme.46.2021.09.29.16.41.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:41:14 -0700 (PDT) From: zimoun To: Liliana Marie Prikler Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] guix: packages: Document 'computed-origin-method'. In-Reply-To: References: <20210916114734.2686426-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <9b6ee27ff10e1042a5d61d0f93d957cf760e9ecb.camel@gmail.com> <87v930ay5y.fsf@netris.org> <87pmstghx0.fsf@netris.org> <1803ff0456849f456c6994d47cbe50d1a8ff6a09.camel@gmail.com> <56dcce10a751153d89f515028cd18c9125f6b84f.camel@gmail.com> <756ae01852047a7adc2522c025c8cd7283dc7e55.camel@gmail.com> <861r57dtq1.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 01:31:04 +0200 Message-ID: <86o88bc62v.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 50620 Cc: Mark H Weaver , 50620@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 (-) Hi, On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 at 00:13, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: > C: Discuss the (gnu packages) vs. (guix packages) thing some more, > merge this patch (with perhaps a move), update the guix package and > then do a v2 of 50515. This is the option I am for. Even, the patch is ready and waiting since =C2=ABFri, 10 Sep 2021 18:01:22 +0200=C2=BB. ;-) The patch reads: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- + (if (eq? method (@@ (guix packages) computed-origin-method)) + ;; Packages in gnu/packages/gnuzilla.scm and gnu/packages/linux.scm + ;; represent their 'uri' as 'promise'. + (match uri + ((? promise? promise) [...] + (_ `((type . #nil)))))) + ;;Regular packages represent 'uri' as string. + `((type . ,(cond ((or (eq? url-fetch method) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and I find better (guix packages) but I do not have a strong opinion; I accepted previously in this thread to send a v2 with (gnu packages) or whatever other location. > WDYT? Does it make sense to do the "redundant test" [1], knowing that > it'll be soon simplified? I do not mind about option (2) which reads: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- + (if (or (eq? method (@@ (gnu packages linux) computed-origin-method)) + (eq? method (@@ (gnu packages gnuzilla) computed-origin-method))) + (match uri + ((? promise? promise) [...] + (_ `((type . #nil)))))) + ;;Regular packages represent 'uri' as string. + `((type . ,(cond ((or (eq? url-fetch method) --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Whatever. However, since it is me who takes care about how this sources.json is generated, I find easier to have one location and forget about this case. The only thing I am asking here with this patch 50620 is to locate computed-origin-method to one unique place. If people strongly disagree, then let do this option (2) and move on. Last, I am confused why all this is so complicated when it is trivial and for something outside Guix proper. I do not understand what we are discussing when my request is trivial, IMHO. This discussion has eaten all my energy allowed for Guix. See you next week. All the best, simon