Alex Kost (2014-08-14 00:58 +0400) wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-13 20:03 +0400) wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Could you turn the above thing into a patch with a commit log? Bonus
>> points for ‘manifest-perform-transaction’ unit tests. Make sure to add
>> a copyright line for yourself in profiles.scm.
>>
>> And then a second patch to actually use it in (guix scripts package)
>> would be wonderful. :-)
>
> Ok, I'm attaching these patches. But there are several issues there:
>
> - I fixed a typo in "tests/profiles.scm" (“profile” -> “profiles”) – Is
> it ok to do this in that commit or should there be a separate commit?
>
> - I added a copyright line to the test file as well. Is it ok?
>
> - The main thing: look at ‘manifest-show-transaction’ – unlike
> ‘show-what-to-remove/install’ it doesn't display an output path of a
> package item, because a store should be used for that. So is it
> acceptable or should something be changed there?
>
>> In the next iteration, ‘show-what-to-remove/install’ should report
>> packages that are going to be upgraded (by checking among ‘install’
>> those are already in the manifest.)
>
> I'll try to do this.
Hello and pardon for replying to my own letter.
If the displaying an ouput path is not an issue, what about the
following variant of ‘manifest-show-transaction’:
(define* (manifest-show-transaction manifest transaction #:key dry-run?)
"Display what will/would be installed/removed from MANIFEST by TRANSACTION."
(define (display-entries entries action-string)
(match entries
((($ <manifest-entry> name version output item _) ..1)
(let ((len (length name))
(package-strings
(map (lambda (name version output item)
(if (package? item)
(format #f " ~a-~a\t~a" name version output)
(format #f " ~a-~a\t~a\t~a" name version output
item)))
name version output item)))
(format (current-error-port)
(N_ "The following package ~:[will~;would~] be ~a:~%~{~a~%~}~%"
"The following packages ~:[will~;would~] be
~a:~%~{~a~%~}~%"
len)
dry-run? action-string package-strings)))
(_ #f)))
(let* ((remove (manifest-matching-entries
manifest (manifest-transaction-remove transaction)))
(install (manifest-transaction-install transaction))
(upgrade (append-map
(lambda (entry)
(manifest-matching-entries
manifest
(list (manifest-pattern
(name (manifest-entry-name entry))
(output (manifest-entry-output entry))))))
install)))
(display-entries upgrade "upgraded (removed)")
(display-entries install "installed")
(display-entries remove "removed")))
I tried to avoid the code duplicating, so it became more compact and
perhaps less readable. Also I added reporting about the packages to
upgrade: I thought as they are going to be replaced by the packages to
install, it is ok to add “(removed)” there. So an output should look
like this (assuming "file-5.17" and "guile-2.0.9" are installed and are
being upgraded):
The following packages will be upgraded (removed):
file-5.17 out /gnu/store/...
guile-2.0.9 out /gnu/store/...
The following packages will be installed:
file-5.18 out
guile-2.0.11 out
