On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 6:14 AM, Alex Kost <[email protected]> wrote: > Ludovic Courtès (2016-05-30 00:50 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost <[email protected]> skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès (2016-05-28 18:36 +0300) wrote: >>> >>>> David Thompson <[email protected]> skribis: >>>> >>>>> * guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm (gnu:unpack) >>>>> (store-file->elisp-source-file, unpack): New procedures. >>>>> (%standard-phases): Use the new unpack procedure. >>>> >>>> Good idea, LGTM! >>>> >>>> Could you adjust users of ‘uncompressed-file-fetch’ in a subsequent >>>> commit, and remove ‘uncompressed-file-fetch’? >>> >>> I object! >> >> Damn it, sorry, I thought this would be uncontroversial. >> >>> I mean this should be discussed at least. I would really prefer to >>> keep (and document) 'uncompressed-file-fetch' and not to update >>> emacs-build-system for this case. It is possible, that once we'll >>> need to handle non-compressed files for another build system. So it >>> should also be adjusted in the same way. But if we keep >>> 'uncompressed-file-fetch', it will be a general decision as it can be >>> used for any build system. >> >> In my view, ‘uncompressed-file-fetch’ and the ‘emacs-build-system’ >> change that Dave proposes are equally good hacks, but the latter has the >> advantage that people won’t have to think about it: they can just use >> ‘url-fetch’ and ‘emacs-build-system’ as usual and things will just work. >> >> Of course, perhaps we should consider handling flat files closer to the >> core, but so far the only use case we have, AFAIK, is .el files. Thus, >> it doesn’t seem that bad to add a special case in ‘emacs-build-system’. >> Pragmatic approach I suppose. ;-) >> >> WDYT? > > <cough>, OK, I wanted to write verbosely why I prefer > uncompressed-file-fetch, and why we should still use it, etc.; > > but I've just noticed an unpleasant downside with > ‘uncompressed-file-fetch’: for example, if you build the recently added > "emacs-queue" package, you'll get "queue-0.1.1.el" file, which makes it > impossible to do (require 'queue). With David's solution, it will be a > proper "queue.el" file. > > So I agree now. David's patch is definitely a better solution :-)
Hehe. Thanks for the discussion. Pushed! - Dave
