bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Maxim, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > Unfortunately the source derivation fails because it attempts to apply a > patch (a single one?) to a tarball: > > (begin > (use-modules >(guix build utils)) > (setenv "PATH" > "/gnu/store/mp0syh29rjknflaiv0hkpdlb2mjk0rlx-patch-2.7.6/bin") > (copy-

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi, Simon Tournier skribis: > 1. From my point of view, the transformations are functions that you > compose. The composition rule is not commutative maybe neither > associative. Writing down how each function (transformation) > composes with the others allows to specify the compo

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Ludo, On lun., 27 févr. 2023 at 15:09, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > However, as I explained before, there’s no clear way to do that for two > reasons: > > 1. Transformations apply to bags, not packages, so we cannot tell > whether a transformation has an effect until after the transformed

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > >>> Quoting Ludo, >>> >>> (this is crucial for our >>> HPC >>> users, who routinely combine a whole bunch of options; you have no >>> idea >>> how far they go once

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi! Simon Tournier skribis: >>From my point of view (and what I tried stopping in the middle :-)) is > to report if the transformation makes sense or not. For instance, You stated that multiple times and there’s general consensus that reporting the issue would be great. However, as I explaine

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Maxim Cournoyer skribis: >> Quoting Ludo, >> >> (this is crucial for our HPC >> users, who routinely combine a whole bunch of options; you have no >> idea >> how far they go once you give them the tool :-)) >> >>

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi Maxim, > > On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 08:52, Maxim Cournoyer > wrote: > >> if the API was consistent it'd be much easier for everyone > > Indeed. However, when it is currently not, the implicit rule is to not > break backward compatibility. That’s the whol

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Maxim, On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 08:52, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > if the API was consistent it'd be much easier for everyone Indeed. However, when it is currently not, the implicit rule is to not break backward compatibility. That’s the whole point. :-) We need to be very cautious whe

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > >> Given 'with-source' discards any patch from the original source, I thought >> I could at least add them back via 'with-patch', but it appears this >> does not work: >> >> scheme@(gnu packages jami)> (options->tran

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Simon, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi Maxim, > > On ven., 24 févr. 2023 at 08:21, Maxim Cournoyer > wrote: > >>> Well, I am not convinced that enforce the ordering is a good thing >>> because as Ludo said, some HPC user exploits this control of ordering to >>> generate complex transformations.

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Maxim, On ven., 24 févr. 2023 at 08:21, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: >> Well, I am not convinced that enforce the ordering is a good thing >> because as Ludo said, some HPC user exploits this control of ordering to >> generate complex transformations. > > Could we gather more information about tha

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hello, Simon Tournier writes: > Hi, > > On jeu., 23 févr. 2023 at 17:27, Maxim Cournoyer > wrote: > >> Hm. That seems sub-optimal; it seems to me that ideally, the >> transformations would be additive, so that users would not need to care >> about the ordering. Or perhaps, alternatively, we

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi, On jeu., 23 févr. 2023 at 17:27, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Hm. That seems sub-optimal; it seems to me that ideally, the > transformations would be additive, so that users would not need to care > about the ordering. Or perhaps, alternatively, we could enforce such > ordering at the impleme

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi Maxim, > > Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > >> Given 'with-source' discards any patch from the original source, I thought >> I could at least add them back via 'with-patch', but it appears this >> does not work: >> >> scheme@(gnu packages jami)> (options->tran

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Maxim, Maxim Cournoyer skribis: > Given 'with-source' discards any patch from the original source, I thought > I could at least add them back via 'with-patch', but it appears this > does not work: > > scheme@(gnu packages jami)> (options->transformation > `((with

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi Maxim, On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:08, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > Given 'with-source' discards any patch from the original source, I thought > I could at least add them back via 'with-patch', but it appears this > does not work: I remember some headaches with this thread [1]. :-) 1:

bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

Hi, Given 'with-source' discards any patch from the original source, I thought I could at least add them back via 'with-patch', but it appears this does not work: --8<---cut here---start->8--- scheme@(gnu packages jami)> (options->transformation