Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form

[Eric Bavier]

On 2016-04-07 05:08, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Thu 07 Apr 2016 11:52, Alex Kost <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 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.

Sure.  I'm persuaded.

> What if the "patches" field just applied `search-path' to each of the
> items in the list if the path is not absolute?  Use
> `absolute-file-name?' to check if this is needed or not.

This sounds like a promising idea to me.

--
`~Eric