Ludovic Courtès (2014-08-30 23:56 +0400) wrote: > Alex Kost <alez...@gmail.com> skribis: > >> + (let* ((remove (manifest-matching-entries >> + manifest (manifest-transaction-remove transaction))) >> + (install/upgrade (manifest-transaction-install transaction)) >> + (install '()) >> + (upgrade (append-map >> + (lambda (entry) >> + (let ((matching >> + (manifest-matching-entries >> + manifest >> + (list (manifest-pattern >> + (name (manifest-entry-name entry)) >> + (output (manifest-entry-output >> entry))))))) >> + (when (null? matching) >> + (set! install (cons entry install))) >> + matching)) >> + install/upgrade))) > > Somehow I had overlooked the ‘set!’ here. ;-) I’ve just added an > auxiliary procedure, ‘manifest-transaction-effects’, which does that in > a functional way. Let me know if there’s anything wrong.
Sorry, I didn't know how to avoid ‘set!’ there. But is it correct to report it like that? I mean if a user has “guile-1.8.8” and installs “guile-2.0.9” then (with your variant) he gets: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The following package will be upgraded: guile-2.0.9 out /gnu/store/... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I thought it should be: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The following package will be upgraded: guile-1.8.8 out /gnu/store/... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Actually that's why (to avoid possible confusion) I initially suggested: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- The following package will be upgraded (removed): guile-1.8.8 out /gnu/store/... The following package will be installed: guile-2.0.9 out /gnu/store/... --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- -- Alex
