Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300
> Alex Kost <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
>> > + "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4"))
>> > + (patches (map search-patch
>> > '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch")))))
>>
>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here.
>
> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later. The
> same has been used in other packages.
I strongly disagree with this policy. More patches may never be added,
but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.
Talking about how we specify package patches currently, I think it would
be better to do it in a more clean and general way. What about adding
the following macro to (gnu packages)?
(define-syntax-rule (search-patches file-name ...)
"Return a list of patches for each FILE-NAME."
(list (search-patch file-name) ...))
So instead of things like this:
(list (search-patch "foo.patch")
(search-patch "bar.patch"))
or this:
(map search-patch '("foo.patch"
"bar.patch"))
we'll have:
(search-patches "foo.patch"
"bar.patch")
If it is acceptable, I can make patches to add this macro and to change
package recipes to use it.
P.S. Actually, I don't like 'search-patches' name. Better ideas?
--
Alex
