Package: emacs;
Reported by: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 20:53:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
View this message in rfc822 format
From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> To: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> Cc: 63336 <at> debbugs.gnu.org Subject: bug#63336: [PATCH] package-vc: Process :make and :shell-command spec args Date: Sun, 14 May 2023 07:44:16 +0000
Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
> Philip Kaludercic <philipk <at> posteo.net> writes:
>
>> Joseph Turner <joseph <at> breatheoutbreathe.in> writes:
>>
>>>>> +(defun package-vc--make (pkg-spec dir)
>>>>> + "Process :make and :shell-command spec arguments."
>>>>> + (let ((target (plist-get pkg-spec :make))
>>>>> + (cmd (plist-get pkg-spec :shell-command)))
>>>>> + (when (or cmd target)
>>>>> + (with-current-buffer (get-buffer-create " *package-vc make*")
>>>> ^
>>>> should the package name
>>>> be mentioned here?
>>>
>>> I like this idea, but IIUC package-vc--make would then need to take an
>>> extra arg, since pkg-spec doesn't contain the :name of the package. We
>>> could also add :name to the pkg-spec plist?
>>
>> I wouldn't be in favour of that, I think that passing the name as a
>> separate argument would be a better solution.
>
> I agree.
>
>>> For comparison, package-vc--build-documentation creates a buffer called
>>> " *package-vc doc*" without the package name.
>>
>> The difference I see here is that documentation usually builds fine,
>> while :make or :shell-command have a higher chance of failing because
>> some software is missing, especially if people don't use :make the way
>> it is used on the ELPA server but to build external dependencies (I'm
>> thinking of mail clients like notmuch)
>
> That makes sense to me. In the attached patch, I pass pkg-desc to
> package-vc--make instead just name.
>
> Want me to submit a separate patch which adds the package name to the
> " *package-vc doc*" buffer name?
No, I don't think it is necessary. But thanks.
>>>>> + target (buffer-name)))))))
>>>>> +
>>>>> (declare-function org-export-to-file "ox" (backend file))
>>>>>
>>>>> (defun package-vc--build-documentation (pkg-desc file)
>>>>> @@ -486,6 +515,9 @@ 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
>>>>> + (when package-vc-process-make (package-vc--make pkg-spec pkg-dir))
>>>>
>>>> Wasn't the plan to allow `package-vc-process-make' to either be a
>>>> generic "build-anything" or a selective listing of packages where we
>>>> allow :make and :shell-command to be executed?
>>>
>>> Let me know if the attached commit accomplishes what you had in mind.
>>
>> Yes, that (or rather the newest version from a different message) looks good.
>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> ;; Detect a manual
>>>>> (when (executable-find "install-info")
>>>>> (dolist (doc-file (ensure-list (plist-get pkg-spec :doc)))
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise this looks good, but I haven't tried it out yet.
>>>
>>> I fixed up a couple other issues:
>>>
>>> - removed unnecessary dir arg to package-vc--make
>>> - added function arg to the docstring for package-vc--make
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if the customization type for package-vc-process-make is
>>> correct. Please double check that.
>>>
>>> Also, should users be able to run :make and :shell-command args defined
>>> in a spec passed into package-vc-install?
>>
>> Yes, is that currently not supported?
>
> Nevermind! It is supported. I didn't notice that package-vc--unpack adds
> the user-defined pkg-spec to package-vc-selected-packages just before
> calling package-vc--unpack-1.
1+
> Best,
>
> Joseph
>
> From b27724197acd4ee72f9d336843f0e6ed9fcee87b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Joseph Turner <joseph <at> 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?
> + "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.
> +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.
> + (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?
> (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?
> + (_ ; 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)))
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.