Specifying package patches in a more convenient form

[Alex Kost]

Eric Bavier (2016-04-06 17:57 +0300) wrote:

> On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 15:13:47 +0300
> Alex Kost <address@hidden> wrote:
[...]
>> > +         "1lgghck46p33z3hg8dnl76jryig4fh6d8rhzms837zp7x4hyfkv4"))
>> > +       (patches (map search-patch 
>> > '("ttfautohint-source-date-epoch.patch")))))
>>
>> Since it's just a single patch, I don't see a reason to use 'map' here.
>
> Just that it's less to change if more patches are added later.  The
> same has been used in other packages.

I strongly disagree with this policy.  More patches may never be added,
but mapping through a list of a single element looks redundant for me.

Talking about how we specify package patches currently, I think it would
be better to do it in a more clean and general way.  What about adding
the following macro to (gnu packages)?

  (define-syntax-rule (search-patches file-name ...)
    "Return a list of patches for each FILE-NAME."
    (list (search-patch file-name) ...))

So instead of things like this:

  (list (search-patch "foo.patch")
        (search-patch "bar.patch"))

or this:

  (map search-patch '("foo.patch"
                      "bar.patch"))

we'll have:

  (search-patches "foo.patch"
                  "bar.patch")

If it is acceptable, I can make patches to add this macro and to change
package recipes to use it.

P.S.  Actually, I don't like 'search-patches' name.  Better ideas?

-- 
Alex