bug#48225: Wrong result of package-name->name+version

[Guillaume Le Vaillant]

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> Hi Guillaume,
>
> Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@posteo.net> skribis:
>
>> From 1e37a89b943a818b5274c1d5f31143ca48bad40a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Guillaume Le Vaillant <glv@posteo.net>
>> Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 10:32:56 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] build-system: asdf: Work around package-name->name+version
>>  bug.
>>
>> This patch modifies how the name of the main Common Lisp system is extracted
>> from the full Guix package name to work around bug#48225 concerning the
>> 'package-name->name+version' function.
>>
>> Fixes <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/41437>.
>>
>> * guix/build-system/asdf.scm (asdf-build): Fix 'systems' function.
>> * guix/build/asdf-build-system.scm (main-system-name): Fix it.
>
> If it works for you, sounds good to me.  Please do rebuild as many CL
> packages, with different CL implementations, to make sure we do not
> overlook any corner case.
>
>> +          (let* ((lisp-prefix (string-append lisp-type "-"))
>> +                 (package-name (hyphen-separated-name->name+version
>> +                                (if (string-prefix? lisp-prefix name)
>> +                                    (string-drop name
>> +                                                 (string-length 
>> lisp-prefix))
>> +                                    name))))
>> +            `(quote ,(list package-name)))
>
> I’d like to see a FIXME in there: this is all guesswork and we should
> eventually replace guesses with known-good info.
>
> What would it take to pass the right package name and implementation
> name upfront from the package?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

I tried rebuilding all the sbcl-*, cl-* and ecl-* packages, as well as
stumpwm, uglify-js and nyxt, and I didn't see new failures.
I pushed the patch as 2fa8fd4af59af0de392352915fa50fc21a4cf98a.

When 'package-name->name+version' returns a bad result leading to an
incorrect default Lisp system name being computed, it can be overridden
using the '#:asd-systems' parameter of 'asdf-build-system', which should
work around the problem in almost all cases.

However I suppose other build systems could have issues if they make use
of 'package-name->name+version' on a package with a name like
"abc-123-def-1.2.3" (depending how they use the result).

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature