[PATCH] build: emacs: Install only a subset of files.

#:include while excluding files matching #:exclude.

and #:exclude.

---

guix/build-system/emacs.scm | 6 ++++++

guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm | 24 +++++++++++++++++++++---

2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

What about package-pkg.el file?.

At 2017-04-19 15:35:25, "Arun Isaac" <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> wrote:

This is a work in progress patch for the discussion at

All feedback welcome!

Arun Isaac writes:

I've copied all this from MELPA's default :files property described at

https://github.com/melpa/melpa. I have no idea what the rationale for

some of these regexes are.

Currently, include and exclude are a list of regexes that file names are

matched against. Should this be combined into one big regex?

Would it be a good idea to add a third keyword argument, say

#:documentation, that will select info documentation files and install

them separately in some other directory?

tumashu writes:

What about it? I am not familiar with this file. Could you please

elaborate?

*.pkg.el seem to be used by emacs package.el, which can not be compile without warn. I can not find the document.

this need to be verify.

At 2017-04-19 17:23:24, "Arun Isaac" <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> wrote:

tumashu writes:

In the current implementation, *.pkg.el files will be installed due to

the ".*.el" regexp in #:include. So, this is not an issue.

PACKAGE-pkg.el seem to *only* useful to package.el, it is useless for guix emacs package.

The below is come from package.el's commentary

#+BEGIN_COMMENT

;; A package is described by its name and version. The distribution

;; format is either a tar file or a single .el file.

;; A tar file should be named "NAME-VERSION.tar". The tar file must

;; unpack into a directory named after the package and version:

;; "NAME-VERSION". It must contain a file named "PACKAGE-pkg.el"

;; which consists of a call to define-package. It may also contain a

;; "dir" file and the info files it references.

;; A .el file is named "NAME-VERSION.el" in the remote archive, but is

;; installed as simply "NAME.el" in a directory named "NAME-VERSION".

#+END_COMMENT

At 2017-04-19 22:26:06, "Arun Isaac" <arunisaac@systemreboot.net> wrote:

tumashu writes:

If it is unnecessary we can simply include one more regexp to the

#:exclude keyword argument so that it does not get installed.

Arun Isaac (2017-04-19 13:25 +0530) wrote:

Great, thanks for working on it!

What regexps are not clear for you?

I think it is not needed, it is more clean to separate regexps.

Regarding documentation: note that it is already installed into the

proper place. I mean if the package has ".info" files, they are

installed into "share/info" (look at 'move-doc' procedure in (guix build

emacs-build-system) module). For example, 'emacs-debbugs' has the info

manual and it is installed appropriately. So I think #:documentation is

not needed.

Also I would like to note that this patch (when it will be ready)

shouldn't be committed alone: there are some emacs packages that should

be adjusted to include additional files. One that comes to mind is

'emacs-slime' - it *must* contain *.lisp files (and other files as

listed at https://github.com/melpa/melpa/blob/master/recipes/slime).

Otherwise, it wouldn't work at all.

So I think this patch should be committed with the according fixes for

such "complex" packages (not sure if there are other ones along with

'emacs-slime').

--

Alex

Arun Isaac (2017-04-20 14:13 +0530) wrote:

Yes, it is completely unnecessary for Guix, so it can be excluded.

--

Alex

I don't understand what ".*.el.in$", "^dir$" and "doc/dir" are for.

Ok. Also, please suggest better names if #:include and #:exclude are not

clear. Perhaps #:include-files and #:exclude-files, or #:install-files

and #:no-install-files ? Any other style changes to the code are also

welcome.

Yeah, move-doc is good. I forgot about it.

For specific packages, we can always override the #:include and

#:exclude keyword arguments. Or, even replace the 'install phase if it

comes to that.

Is there some standard workflow for testing packages when there is a

build system change? There are currently 154 packages in

gnu/packages/emacs.scm. Should I test them all?

Arun Isaac (2017-04-20 18:22 +0530) wrote:

"dir" file is for documentation (to make the according manual entry

appear in the top Info directory). These "dir" files are not needed for

Guix, as Guix generates "dir" after updating a profile

("<guix-profile>/share/info/dir").

Usually files with ".in" ending are used as templates to generate other

files from them (in this case ".el" from ".el.in"). It looks like there

are packages that have ".el.in" files but not ".el" files, and

package-build (used by melpa) just renames such files. At least that's

what I understood from:

https://github.com/melpa/package-build/commit/d1c217a7ef33807c4948853114133af72284031c

But I'm sure we don't have the packages with ".el.in" files, and if we

will, most likely gnu-build-system will be used for them, so I suggest

to remove ".el.in" regexp from the "include" list.

I think include/exclude is OK. But maybe other people (if anyone else

reads this thread :-)) have other opinions.

[...]

Yes, that's what I meant.

AFAIK, there is no standard workflow :-)

I think it would be too much work. I quickly looked at the emacs

packages, and I believe that only slime, auctex and yasnippet need to be

adjusted to include non-standard files. Of course, there may be other

packages that I'm not aware of, but they can be fixed later.

--

Alex

Arun Isaac (2017-04-19 13:05 +0530) wrote:

I think only ".*.el$", ".*.info$", and probably "doc/*.info$" are needed

here. The rest regexps look useless to me.

Note, however, that 'move-doc' procedure should be adjusted to find info

in "doc" subdir (for "doc/*.info$" regex).

Don't forget to add ".*-pkg.el" here.

[...]

It doesn't look right that these regexps are duplicated in 2 places.

I'm not very familiar with build systems, but what if the

'include'/'exclude' arguments of 'install' procedure would simply be

empty lists? I think it wouldn't do harm if you leave these regexps

only in 'emacs-build' procedure or would it?

--

Alex

arguments.

---

gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 5 ++++-

1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

#:exclude arguments.

---

gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 5 ++++-

1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

#:include while excluding files matching #:exclude.

and #:exclude.

---

guix/build-system/emacs.scm | 4 ++++

guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----

2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

In the new patchset, I have cleaned up and removed some of the regexps,

as you suggested. I have also rewritten the logic using `find-files'

rather than with `ftw'.

I don't think the `move-doc' phase needs to be changed. It finds .info

files with `find-files' which is recursive.

I am not too familiar with build systems, but I think the

include/exclude arguments need to be duplicated in two places. For

example, look at arguments #:strip-flags and #:strip-directories in the

`strip' phase of the gnu-build-system. Even there, the default values of

the arguments are repeated in two places.

I've provided patches for emacs-slime and emacs-auctex packages as

well. I believe I got all the required files, but please check.

As it stands, emacs-yasnippet does not seem to need any changes. But, I

think the package is already broken. It needs a snippets directory

pulled from a git submodule. And, even the current package does not pull

this submodule. So, I believe the yasnippet package is already

broken. But, I don't use yasnippet, and I'm not too sure.

Arun Isaac (2017-04-26 19:50 +0530) wrote:

Great, thanks!

Oh, right.

Hm, ok, although I still think that these arguments are not needed to be

duplicated in 'install' procedure, but I'm not the one to judge about it.

I personally don't use these packages, but I think they should be OK

now, thank you!

Oh, right; last time I checked "yasnippet" (several years ago) this

"snippets" directory was a part of the repo.

Yeah, you are probably right, without snippets, yasnippet is… well,

let's say limited. But let's leave this problem for those who use

yasnippet :-)

Thank you for this work! I hope someone else will look at this thread

and will say "OK". As for me, I don't have any further comments and I

think it is ready to be committed. In the worst case there would be a

couple of broken emacs packages but they could be easily fixed.

--

Alex

Arun Isaac (2017-04-26 19:39 +0530) wrote:

All these additional files are placed in "contrib" directory, so what

about the following list:

#:include '("\\.el$" "\\.lisp$" "\\.asd$" "^contrib/")

and excluding Makefile from there:

#:exclude '("^contrib/test/" "^contrib/Makefile")

--

Alex

Yes, this is a good idea. I'll send a new patchset as soon as possible.

arguments.

---

gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 4 +++-

1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

#:exclude arguments.

---

gnu/packages/emacs.scm | 5 ++++-

1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

#:include while excluding files matching #:exclude.

and #:exclude.

---

guix/build-system/emacs.scm | 4 ++++

guix/build/emacs-build-system.scm | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++----

2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

I've sent a new patchset. Now, we just have to wait for someone else to

look at this thread...

Ludo said (in another thread) that we should prefer `string-drop' to

`substring'. I'll make that change along with any others suggested by

others who review this patch.

Arun Isaac (2017-05-05 00:09 +0530) wrote:

This thread is already 1 month old, IMO it's not necessary to wait any

longer. I think you can just commit these patches. If there will be

some breakage caused by this change, we will fix it.

--

Alex

Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:

I agree with this strategy!

Thanks,

Ludo’.

Pushed with a few minor changes!