Re: Solving the ‘package-name->name+version’ name conflict.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> skribis:

> David Thompson <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> * guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm (gnu:unpack)
>> (store-file->elisp-source-file, unpack): New procedures.
>> (%standard-phases): Use the new unpack procedure.
>> ---
>>  guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm 
>> b/guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm
>> index f0a9a6e..4fd36d1 100644
>> --- a/guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm
>> +++ b/guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>    #:use-module (guix build utils)
>>    #:use-module (guix build emacs-utils)
>>    #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
>> +  #:use-module (srfi srfi-11)
>>    #:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
>>    #:use-module (ice-9 rdelim)
>>    #:use-module (ice-9 regex)
>> @@ -39,6 +40,27 @@
>>  ;; archive signature.
>>  (define %install-suffix "/share/emacs/site-lisp/guix.d")
>>  
>> +(define gnu:unpack (assoc-ref gnu:%standard-phases 'unpack))
>> +
>> +(define (store-file->elisp-source-file file)
>> +  "Convert file, a store file name for an Emacs Lisp source file, into a 
>> file
>> +name that has been stripped of the hash and version number."
>> +  (let-values (((name version)
>> +                (package-name->name+version
>                     ^^^
>
> This is the old ‘package-name->name+version’ from (guix build utils)
> which has been replaced when possible by a new one in (guix utils) using
> '@' as a delimiter.  While I think it was OK to use it to fix previously
> written code, I don't want Guix to build upon the old one.

We kept this procedure in (guix build utils) because it’s still used.
In this case, we have “foo-1.2”, and we want to get the values “foo” and
“1.2”, so using this procedure is the right thing to do.

> Time has come to resolve this ugly and confusing name conflict.  The
> problem is that I don't fully understand the rationale behind this
> temporary solution, so I can't help much.
>
> Ludo: Since you are the mind behind it, I think you are in the best
> position to figure this out or at least explain to us “mere mortals”
> what is possible and what is not.  :)

Naming is one of the hardest problems in programming, you know!  :-)

So we have:

  (guix build utils):package-name->name+version
    which expects “foo-1.2”

  (guix utils):package-name->name+version
    which expects address@hidden

There’s no doubt we need to keep both, so what we can do is rename one
of them.

What about renaming the one in (guix utils) to
‘package-specification->name+version’?

Bonus points if you provide a patch!  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.