Re: [PATCH 04/13] utils: Use '@' for separating package names and version numbers.

[Thompson, David]

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>.
>
> * guix/build/utils.scm (package-name->name+version): Use '@' for
> separating package names and version numbers instead of '-'.  This
> provides the ability to use numbers in package names.
> * guix/packages.scm (package-full-name): Add an optional SEPARATOR
> argument defaulting to "@".
> * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package, Invoking guix import): Adapt to
> the new syntax.
> * guix/ui.scm (package-specification->name+version+output): Likewise.
> * guix/scripts/import/hackage.scm (show-help): Likewise.
> * gnu/packages.scm (check-package-freshness, specification->package)
> (specification->package+output): Likewise.
> * emacs/guix-base.scm (guix-package-name-specification): Likewise.
> * emacs/guix-main.scm (full-name->name+version)
> (name+version->full-name): Likewise.
> * tests/guix-build.sh: Likewise.
> * tests/guix-lint.sh: Likewise.
> * tests/guix-package.sh: Likewise.
> * tests/packages.scm: Likewise.
> * tests/ui.scm: Likewise.
> * tests/utils.scm: Likewise.
> * tests/graph.scm ("bag-emerged DAG"): Use 'package-full-name' optional
> SEPARATOR argument.
> * gnu/packages/commencement.scm (gcc-boot0): Likewise.
> * NEWS: Mention new syntax.
> ---
>  NEWS                            | 13 +++++++++++++
>  doc/guix.texi                   | 12 ++++++------
>  emacs/guix-base.el              |  2 +-
>  emacs/guix-main.scm             |  4 ++--
>  gnu/packages.scm                | 10 +++++-----
>  gnu/packages/commencement.scm   |  2 +-
>  guix/build/utils.scm            | 25 +++++++------------------
>  guix/packages.scm               |  9 ++++++---
>  guix/scripts/import/hackage.scm |  2 +-
>  guix/ui.scm                     |  4 ++--
>  tests/graph.scm                 |  2 +-
>  tests/guix-build.sh             |  4 ++--
>  tests/guix-lint.sh              |  2 +-
>  tests/guix-package.sh           |  4 ++--
>  tests/ui.scm                    |  6 +++---
>  tests/utils.scm                 |  4 ++--
>  16 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)

Does the fact that so many files needed to be edited indicate the need
for a single specification string constructor?  If this had already
been the case, then this patch would have only needed to change 1 or 2
procedures.

That's not to say that this isn't great work!  I just think that we
could ease the maintenance burden with some refactoring.

- Dave