Ludovic Courtès (2016-04-08 00:54 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost <[email protected]> skribis: [...] >> 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") > > I like it!
OK, I've sent the patches for this change. > Andy Wingo <[email protected]> skribis: > >> 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. > > FWIW I have a preference for keeping things explicit. Another argument is 'glibc-locales' packages which has: (patches (cons (search-patch "glibc-locales.patch") (origin-patches (package-source glibc)))) -- Alex
