bug#43893: [PATCH] maint: update-guix-package: Optionally add sources to store.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

>> Thanks for the patch, that should break the deadlock and allow us to
>> proceed with the release!
>>
>> Next we need to update the ‘release’ target so
>> GUIX_ALLOW_ME_TO_USE_PRIVATE_COMMIT is set.
>
> Done!

Thanks!

>> the extra dependency on Git,
>
> To me, this script (update-guix-package), is an extension of the
> Make-based build system (that's currently it's sole entry-point).  There
> are already calls to git in this build system (for example, to get the
> commit corresponding to HEAD), so I don't perceive it as nasty in this
> context.  It can also be used as a reminder of things that are missing
> in (guile git), for the purists ;-).

I think we had everything needed in Guile-Git.

>> the extra copies of the whole tree,
>
> There used to be 3 copies required in total (the Guix checkout, a first
> dummy copy in the store, and a final copy in the store).
>
> Now, we have 2 copies unless GUIX_ALLOW_ME_TO_USE_PRIVATE_COMMIT is set,
> in which case we get a third one in the store.  Seems pretty even to me!

Right, I stand corrected.

>> the extra code
>
> The extra code make things smoother (better/faster diagnostic), causes
> less friction in the workflow (I don't need to go paranoid about my tree
> being in pristine condition before 'make update-guix-package' -- I can
> rely on Guix computing it deterministically from the last commit).
>
>> and the shell pipelines, something avoided in the rest of Guix.
>
> Again, to me this script is a standalone extension of the build system.
> It's not defined as a module, cannot be used in the rest of the code
> base, so that it does things a bit differently doesn't strike me as bad.

Note that quite a few modules started their life under build-aux/.

>> Perhaps that suggests there are unwritten coding guidelines we should
>> eventually discuss and write.  We’ll see!
>
> That could be nice.  Although a linter included with Guile (ala Rust or
> Go) and configurable through a config file could have even more impact,
> in my opinion.  In any case I'd be honored that my code got to be the
> spark behind such guidelines/tool, eh :-).

I don’t think a linter could flag high-level patterns like the ones
we’re talking about, but human-written text could.

I hope this discussion can at least help improve mutual understanding on
future patches and review processes.

Thanks again for your time and patience!

Ludo’.