Re: [PATCH] Add LDC.

[Roel Janssen]

0001-gnu-Add-LDC-v2.patch
Description: Text Data

Hello Ricardo,

Thanks again for your time and helpful response.  I hope this version of
the patch is fine.

Ricardo Wurmus writes:

> Roel Janssen <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> +(define-module (gnu packages ldc)
>> +  #:use-module ((guix licenses) #:prefix license:)
>> +  #:use-module (guix packages)
>> +  #:use-module (guix download)
>> +  #:use-module (guix build-system cmake)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages base)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages libedit)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages llvm)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages textutils)
>> +  #:use-module (gnu packages zip))
>> +
>> +(define-public ldc
>> +  (package
>> +    (name "ldc")
>> +    (version "0.16.1")
>> +    (source (origin
>> +              (method url-fetch)
>> +              (uri (string-append
>> +                    "https://github.com/ldc-developers/ldc/archive/v";
>> +                    version ".tar.gz"))
>> +              (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))
>> +              (sha256
>> +               (base32
>> +                "1jvilxx0rpqmkbja4m69fhd5g09697xq7vyqp2hz4hvxmmmv4j40"))))
>> +    (build-system cmake-build-system)
>> +    (supported-systems '("x86_64-linux" "i686-linux")) ; other 
>> architectures are
>> +    (arguments                                         ; not supported 
>> (yet).
>
> This comment would better be placed above the ‘(supported-systems...)’
> line.  Having it be part of the ‘(arguments’ line as well is not nice.
> As a line comment it would then start with a double-semicolon.

Ok.

>> +     `(#:phases
>> +       (modify-phases %standard-phases
>> +         (add-after 'unpack 'unpack-phobos-source
>> +           (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>> +               (with-directory-excursion "runtime/phobos"
>> +                 (zero? (system* "tar" "xvf" (assoc-ref inputs "phobos-src")
>> +                                 "--strip-components=1")))))
>> +         (add-after 'unpack 'unpack-druntime-source
>> +           (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>> +               (with-directory-excursion "runtime/druntime"
>> +                 (zero? (system* "tar" "xvzf" (assoc-ref inputs 
>> "druntime-src")
>> +                                 "--strip-components=1")))))
>> +         (add-after 'unpack 'unpack-dmd-testsuite-source
>> +           (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>> +               (with-directory-excursion "tests/d2/dmd-testsuite"
>> +                 (zero? (system* "tar" "xvzf"
>> +                                 (assoc-ref inputs "dmd-testsuite-src")
>> +                                 "--strip-components=1")))))
>
> I still think that using one phase for unpacking additional tarballs
> would totally suffice.  Something like this, maybe:
>
>         (add-after 'unpack 'unpack-phobos-source
>           (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>             (let ((unpack (lambda (source target)
>                             (with-directory-excursion target
>                               (zero? (system* "tar" "xvf"
>                                               (assoc-ref inputs source)
>                                               "--strip-components=1"))))))
>               (and (unpack "phobos-src" "runtime/phobos")
>                    (unpack "druntime-src" "runtime/druntime")
>                    (unpack "dmd-testsuite-src" "tests/d2/dmd-testsuite")))))
>
> It’s just a matter of taste, but I really find that your proposed three
> phases look rather noisy with lots of boilerplate, which I don’t think
> needs repeating.

After seeing how you would go about this I totally agree.  I envisioned
three times the (with-directory-excursion) part, which wasn't much
better than what I had.

This looks really good.  Thanks for your guidance!

>> +         (add-after
>> +          'unpack-phobos-source 'patch-phobos
>
> Please pull the symbols onto the same line as “add-after”.

Ok.

>> +          (lambda* (#:key inputs #:allow-other-keys)
>> +            (begin
>
> “begin” is not needed in “lambda”.

Cool. I didn't know that, thanks!

>> +              (substitute* "runtime/phobos/std/process.d"
>> +                (("/bin/sh") (which "sh"))
>> +                (("echo") (which "echo")))
>> +              (substitute* "runtime/phobos/std/datetime.d"
>> +                (("/usr/share/zoneinfo/")
>> +                 (string-append (assoc-ref inputs "tzdata") 
>> "/share/zoneinfo")))
>> +              (substitute* "tests/d2/dmd-testsuite/Makefile"
>> +                (("/bin/bash") (which "bash"))))
>> +            #t))
>
>
>> +         (add-after 'unpack-dmd-testsuite-source 'patch-dmd-testsuite
>> +          (lambda _
>> +            #t)))))
>
> I don’t think this phase is needed.

You're right.

>> +    (inputs
>> +     `(("libconfig" ,libconfig)
>> +       ("libedit" ,libedit)
>> +       ("tzdata" ,tzdata)))
>> +    (native-inputs
>> +     `(("llvm" ,llvm)
>> +       ("clang" ,clang)
>> +       ("unzip" ,unzip)
>> +       ("phobos-src"
>> +        ,(origin
>> +          (method url-fetch)
>> +          (uri (string-append
>> +                "https://github.com/ldc-developers/phobos/archive/ldc-v";
>> +                version ".tar.gz"))
>> +          (sha256
>> +           (base32
>> +            "0sgdj0536c4nb118yiw1f8lqy5d3g3lpg9l99l165lk9xy45l9z4"))
>> +          (patches (list (search-patch "ldc-disable-tests.patch")))))
>> +       ("druntime-src"
>> +        ,(origin
>> +          (method url-fetch)
>> +          (uri (string-append
>> +                "https://github.com/ldc-developers/druntime/archive/ldc-v";
>> +                version ".tar.gz"))
>> +          (sha256
>> +           (base32
>> +            "0z4mkyddx6c4sy1vqgqvavz55083dsxws681qkh93jh1rpby9yg6"))))
>> +       ("dmd-testsuite-src"
>> +        ,(origin
>> +          (method url-fetch)
>> +          (uri (string-append
>> +                
>> "https://github.com/ldc-developers/dmd-testsuite/archive/ldc-v";
>> +                version ".tar.gz"))
>> +          (sha256
>> +           (base32
>> +            "0yc6miidzgl9k33ygk7xcppmfd6kivqj02cvv4fmkbs3qz4yy3z1"))))))
>> +    (home-page "http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC";)
>> +    (synopsis "LLVM compiler for the D programming language")
>> +    (description
>> +     "LDC is a compiler for the D programming language.  It is based on the
>> +latest DMD frontend and uses LLVM as backend.")
>> +    (license license:bsd-3))) ; with exceptions for the DMD frontend 
>> (custom) and code from GDC (GPLv2+)
>
> This comment is too long for a margin comment.  Better place it above
> the ‘(license ...’ line (with double semicolon).

Done.

> I don’t understand the comment.  What exceptions apply to the DMD
> frontend?  What does “(custom)” mean?  Is it a different license?  If
> this package contains code under different licenses it should be made
> clear by providing a list of licenses:
>
>     ;; Most of the code is released under BSD-3, except for code from
>     ;; GDC (what is this?), which is released under GPLv2+, and the DMD
>     ;; frontend, which is released under the “whatever” license.
>     (license (list license:bsd-3
>                    license:gpl2+
>                    license:whatever-custom-is))
>
> If there is no matching license value for “custom” you can use
> “(license:non-copyleft uri)”, where “uri” is a string holding the URL
> where the license can be read.
>
> I think with these changes it’s okay.

It is the Boost Software License v1.  So I peeked at boost.scm and
copied that license (license:x11-style ...).

The attached patch should be good, I believe.  I hope the description
for the licenses is fine now.  The LDC developers have just copied
source code files from GDC.

Thanks,
Roel Janssen