GNU bug report logs - #50620
[PATCH 0/2] Unify 'computed-origin-method' (linux, icecat)

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
To: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 50620 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: [bug#50620] [PATCH 1/2] guix: packages: Document 'computed-origin-method'.
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 19:38:22 -0400

Hi Liliana,

Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that rather than putting this into (guix packages) itself, we
> might want to put it into its own file like (guix computed-origins) and
> choose a method name that is actually a verb, similar to git-fetch or
> svn-fetch.  Perhaps simply call it compute-origin?

These suggestions sound fine to me, although I don't have a strong
opinion either way.  I'm happy to leave these details to others to
decide.

> If done this way, there'd be the benefit that modules with packages
> using this thing would have to explicitly request the presence of the
> symbol through their use-modules clauses.

Actually, for better or worse, Guile's '@@' form does not require the
named module to be imported using 'use-modules', so I don't think this
benefit strictly exists as stated above.  However, I agree that it's
good practice to list all imported modules in the '#:use-module' clauses
at the top of the file wherever possible [*], and that there may be some
benefit in declaring the use of 'computed-origins' at the top of each
file.

      Thanks,
        Mark

[*] It's not always possible in the presence of cyclic module dependencies.

-- 
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.