GNU bug report logs - #65062
[PATCH core-updates] packages: Lookup inputs by specification.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Hilton Chain <hako <at> ultrarare.space>
Cc: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>, Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, 65062 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Christopher Baines <guix <at> cbaines.net>
Subject: [bug#65062] [PATCH core-updates] packages: Lookup inputs by specification.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2023 22:26:51 +0100

Hi,

Hilton Chain <hako <at> ultrarare.space> skribis:

> * guix/packages.scm (specification->inputs): New procedure.
> (lookup-input,replace-input): Use it.
> (delete-input): New procedure.
> (modify-inputs)[delete]: Use it.

I’ve been thinking about this change lately.

The problem we have now is that it looks like input labels are gone, but
they’re not; in particular ‘modify-inputs’ preserves labels, which is a
source of confusion.  For instance, if you do:

  (modify-inputs x
    (replace "openmpi" mpich))

then ‘mpich’ remains associated with the “openmpi” label.  Ugh.

So I sympathize with the goal.  I think we can do something simpler
though:

>  (define (lookup-input inputs name)
>    "Lookup NAME among INPUTS, an input list."
>    ;; Note: Currently INPUTS is assumed to be an input list that contains input
>    ;; labels.  In the future, input labels will be gone and this procedure will
>    ;; check package names.
> -  (match (assoc-ref inputs name)
> -    ((obj) obj)
> -    ((obj _) obj)
> -    (#f #f)))
> +  (let ((candidates (specification->inputs name inputs)))
> +    (and (not (null? candidates))
> +         (second (first candidates)))))

How about:

  (find (match-lambda
          ((_ (? package? package) . _)
           (string=? (package-name package) name))
          (_ #f))
        inputs)

?

That way, ‘lookup-input’ would honor package names and ignore labels.

> +(define (delete-input name inputs)
> +  "Delete input NAME within INPUTS."
> +  (let ((to-delete (specification->inputs name inputs)))
> +    (lset-difference equal? inputs to-delete)))

And we do something similar here.

Thus, no need to fiddle with specifications.

How does that sound?

Now, I think this is the way forward, but I also think it’s going to
break many packages and workflows (‘--with-input’…).  So it should go
hand in hand with an effort to fully remove labels in Guix.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

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