[bug#34040] [PATCH 1/2] refresh: Suggest input changes when updating.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Other comments/questions came to mind…  :-)

Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> skribis:

>    (version        upstream-source-version)        ;string
>    (urls           upstream-source-urls)           ;list of strings
>    (signature-urls upstream-source-signature-urls  ;#f | list of strings
> -                  (default #f)))
> +                  (default #f))
> +  (input-changes  upstream-source-input-changes
> +                  (default '()) (thunked)))

Any particular reason for making ‘input-changes’ thunked?

This causes a failure in tests/upstream.scm (because two evaluator
procedures are unlikely to be eq?).  I would fix it by removing the
‘thunked’ property but I’m not sure if it’d make sense.

Another thing: “upstream source” designates something
absolute/stateless, but “input changes” designates something
relative/stateful.  So on second thought, I wonder whether
<upstream-source> is the right place for it.

I was thinking that updaters could maybe return two values
(<upstream-source> + list of changed inputs), which would be equivalent
but somewhat clearer.  The downside is that we’d have to change all
updaters to return multiple values.

Alternately, we could change ‘input-changes’ to ‘inputs’, which would be
absolute, not relative, and thus ‘package-update’ would take care of
calling ‘changed-inputs’ etc.

WDYT?

Apologies for not asking these questions earlier!

Thanks,
Ludo’.