--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
search-patch fails to consult GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH |
|
Date: |
Sat, 13 Dec 2014 03:43:14 -0500 |
Tomáš Čech <address@hidden> reported on IRC that 'search-patch'
failed to find a patch he had put into DIR/gnu/packages/patches/, where
DIR was in $GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH. Adding DIR to GUILE_LOAD_PATH fixed the
problem.
Also, it would be good to improve the error message when 'search-patch'
fails. This is what he reported seeing:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
guix/packages.scm:374:17: In procedure #<procedure 47c70c0 at
guix/packages.scm:372:9 (number patch)>:
guix/packages.scm:374:17: Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no
matching pattern" #f)'.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Mark
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#19364: search-patch fails to consult GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH |
|
Date: |
Sun, 04 Jan 2015 00:01:19 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) |
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> skribis:
> Tomáš Čech <address@hidden> reported on IRC that 'search-patch'
> failed to find a patch he had put into DIR/gnu/packages/patches/, where
> DIR was in $GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH. Adding DIR to GUILE_LOAD_PATH fixed the
> problem.
Fixed in ee06af5.
> Also, it would be good to improve the error message when 'search-patch'
> fails. This is what he reported seeing:
>
> guix/packages.scm:374:17: In procedure #<procedure 47c70c0 at
> guix/packages.scm:372:9 (number patch)>:
> guix/packages.scm:374:17: Throw to key `match-error' with args `("match" "no
> matching pattern" #f)'.
I came up with this patch:
diff --git a/gnu/packages.scm b/gnu/packages.scm
index 7f0b58b..57a3e21 100644
--- a/gnu/packages.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages.scm
@@ -30,6 +30,8 @@
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-11)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-34)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-35)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-39)
#:export (search-patch
search-bootstrap-binary
@@ -70,13 +72,23 @@
%load-path)))
(define (search-patch file-name)
- "Search the patch FILE-NAME."
- (search-path (%patch-path) file-name))
+ "Search the patch FILE-NAME. Raise an error if not found."
+ (or (search-path (%patch-path) file-name)
+ (raise (condition
+ (&message (message (format #f (_ "~a: patch not found")
+ file-name)))))))
(define (search-bootstrap-binary file-name system)
- "Search the bootstrap binary FILE-NAME for SYSTEM."
- (search-path (%bootstrap-binaries-path)
- (string-append system "/" file-name)))
+ "Search the bootstrap binary FILE-NAME for SYSTEM. Raise an error if not
+found."
+ (or (search-path (%bootstrap-binaries-path)
+ (string-append system "/" file-name))
+ (raise (condition
+ (&message
+ (message
+ (format #f (_ "could not find bootstrap binary '~a' \
+for system '~a'")
+ file-name system)))))))
(define %distro-root-directory
;; Absolute file name of the module hierarchy.
However, since ‘search-patch’ errors happen at load time, the actual
exception is hidden, and one just gets a “package not found” error.
To fix that, we’d need to make ‘patches’ a thunked field, which sounds
reasonable to me. WDYT?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---