Hello, Nicolas Graves <ngra...@ngraves.fr> writes:
> Actually the thunk was not necessary because args were already passed to > the build-bag procedure, and modules and imported-modules were already > used in every bag-build procedures, except for trivial and raw > build-systems. > > Patch should look like the one attached, overall pretty simple. > > However it does break the build-system API so channels that define a > build-system will have to update too. Maybe we the field could default to the empty list? > I'll investigate now if we can simply do away without imported-modules > at all. Yes, we should definitely do that. > From 24e6f4a707a557bd82c342a90b28a46f0b2790b6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > Message-ID: > <24e6f4a707a557bd82c342a90b28a46f0b2790b6.1745531594.git.ngra...@ngraves.fr> > From: Nicolas Graves <ngra...@ngraves.fr> > Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 06:13:05 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] build-system: Add default(-imported)-modules fields. [...] > (define-record-type* <build-system> build-system make-build-system > build-system? > - (name build-system-name) ; symbol > - (description build-system-description) ; short description > - (lower build-system-lower)) ; args ... -> bags > + (name build-system-name) ; symbol > + (description build-system-description) ; short > description > + (default-imported-modules build-system-default-imported-modules) So I’d drop this one. ↑ > + (default-modules build-system-default-modules) … and probably change this one to just ‘modules’. > Also, I'll try to split the > https://lists.sr.ht/~ngraves/devel/%3c20250319173238.7969-1-ngra...@ngraves.fr%3E > patch series : > > 1) some patches are improvements independent of wherever I try to do with > partial builds. They can already be reviewed now independently from the rest. “Partial build”, interesting. :-) > 2) some patches are standardizing improvements for the names : > - %XXX-build-system-modules --> %default-XXX-imported-modules > - %XXX-modules or %default-modules --> %default-XXX-modules > - is that a fine standardizing change or should I go through a GCD? Well, there was already a name change in this area that left me unconvinced and that we’re still adjusting to, many months later. So my advice would be to think twice before renaming bindings with a lot of users. A GCD might sound overkill but OTOH it could help think through the implications. > 3) some patches are about the core of 68315 (allowing monadic bag-build). OK. Thanks, Ludo’.
