On 2016-04-07 05:08, Andy Wingo wrote:
On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <[email protected]> writes:
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.
Sure. I'm persuaded.
What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the
items in the list if the path is not absolute? Use
`absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not.
This sounds like a promising idea to me.
--
`~Eric
