Re: Specifying package patches in a more convenient form

[Andy Wingo]

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.

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.

Andy