Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Joseph Turner <joseph@breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>
>> Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:
>>
>>> Joseph Turner <joseph@breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>> From b27724197acd4ee72f9d336843f0e6ed9fcee87b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Joseph Turner <joseph@breatheoutbreathe.in>
>> Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 10:05:04 -0700
>> Subject: [PATCH] package-vc: Process :make and :shell-command spec args
>>
>> ---
>>  lisp/emacs-lisp/package-vc.el | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-vc.el b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-vc.el
>> index beca0bd00e2..8529d1dad5c 100644
>> --- a/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-vc.el
>> +++ b/lisp/emacs-lisp/package-vc.el
>> @@ -344,6 +344,33 @@ asynchronously."
>>          "\n")
>>         nil pkg-file nil 'silent))))
>>
>> +(defcustom package-vc-process-make nil
>
> Have we discussed the name of this user option?  I feel it is too
> immediate, and therefore not intuitively obvious what purpose it serves.
> I would imagine something along the lines of
> "package-vc-allow-side-effects" or "package-vc-permit-building" could be
> better?  WDYT?

I like "package-vc-allow-side-effects". Changed in attached patch.

>> +  "Whether to process :make and :shell-command spec arguments.
>
> I guess here too an explanation would be warranted (and in the manual).
> Explaining what the issue is, and why one might be wary to enable the option.

Does my addition suffice?

We also might want to add another option for
package-vc-allow-side-effects like 'user-defined, which only runs :make
and :shell-command args which were specified by the user (as opposed to
those which were downloaded from elpa). WDYT?

To update the manual, shall I edit doc/emacs/package.texi directly or is
there another file to edit?

>> +When set to a list of symbols (packages), run commands for only
>> +packages in the list. When `nil', never run commands. Otherwise
>> +when non-`nil', run commands for any package with :make or
>> +:shell-command specified.
>> +
>> +Package specs are loaded from trusted package archives."
>> +  :type '(choice (const :tag "Run for all packages" t)
>> +                 (repeat :tag "Run only for selected packages" (symbol :tag "Package name"))
>> +                 (const :tag "Never run" nil))
>> +  :version "30.1")
>> +
>> +(defun package-vc--make (pkg-spec pkg-desc)
>> +  "Process :make and :shell-command PKG-SPEC arguments for PKG-DESC."
>> +  (let ((target (plist-get pkg-spec :make))
>> +        (cmd (plist-get pkg-spec :shell-command)))
>> +    (when (or cmd target)
>> +      (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create
>
> I'd format the buffer name in the top let to prevent this line-break here.

Done.

>> +                            (format " *package-vc make %s*" (package-desc-name pkg-desc)))
>> +        (erase-buffer)
>> +        (when (and cmd (/= 0 (call-process shell-file-name nil t nil shell-command-switch cmd)))
>> +          (warn "Failed to run %s, see buffer %S" cmd (buffer-name)))
>> +        (when (and target (/= 0 (apply #'call-process "make" nil t nil (if (consp target) target (list target)))))
>> +          (warn "Failed to make %s, see buffer %S" target (buffer-name)))))))
>
> If :shell-command fails, do we really want to proceed to :make?

Up to you! I was following the lead of elpa-admin.el.

>>  (declare-function org-export-to-file "ox" (backend file))
>>
>>  (defun package-vc--build-documentation (pkg-desc file)
>> @@ -486,6 +513,16 @@ documentation and marking the package as installed."
>>        ;; Generate package file
>>        (package-vc--generate-description-file pkg-desc pkg-file)
>>
>> +      ;; Process :make and :shell-command arguments before building documentation
>> +      (pcase package-vc-process-make
>> +        ((pred consp) ; When non-`nil' list, check if package is on the list.
>> +         (when (memq (package-desc-name pkg-desc) package-vc-process-make)
>> +           (package-vc--make pkg-spec pkg-desc)))
>> +        ('nil         ; When `nil', do nothing.
>> +         nil)
>
> Perhaps swap the two conditions, first checking nil then listp which I
> think reads more natural.  Then again, is pcase actually serving
> anything here?

I switched the first two cases. I think pcase is readable here,
especially if we add an 'user-defined option. What would you use
instead?

>> +        (_            ; When otherwise non-`nil', run commands.
>> +         (package-vc--make pkg-spec pkg-desc)))
>> +
>>        ;; Detect a manual
>>        (when (executable-find "install-info")
>>          (dolist (doc-file (ensure-list (plist-get pkg-spec :doc)))