On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Mathieu Lirzin <m...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Fixes <http://bugs.gnu.org/19219>. > > * guix/build/utils.scm (package-name->name+version): Use '@' for > separating package names and version numbers instead of '-'. This > provides the ability to use numbers in package names. > * guix/packages.scm (package-full-name): Add an optional SEPARATOR > argument defaulting to "@". > * doc/guix.texi (Invoking guix package, Invoking guix import): Adapt to > the new syntax. > * guix/ui.scm (package-specification->name+version+output): Likewise. > * guix/scripts/import/hackage.scm (show-help): Likewise. > * gnu/packages.scm (check-package-freshness, specification->package) > (specification->package+output): Likewise. > * emacs/guix-base.scm (guix-package-name-specification): Likewise. > * emacs/guix-main.scm (full-name->name+version) > (name+version->full-name): Likewise. > * tests/guix-build.sh: Likewise. > * tests/guix-lint.sh: Likewise. > * tests/guix-package.sh: Likewise. > * tests/packages.scm: Likewise. > * tests/ui.scm: Likewise. > * tests/utils.scm: Likewise. > * tests/graph.scm ("bag-emerged DAG"): Use 'package-full-name' optional > SEPARATOR argument. > * gnu/packages/commencement.scm (gcc-boot0): Likewise. > * NEWS: Mention new syntax. > --- > NEWS | 13 +++++++++++++ > doc/guix.texi | 12 ++++++------ > emacs/guix-base.el | 2 +- > emacs/guix-main.scm | 4 ++-- > gnu/packages.scm | 10 +++++----- > gnu/packages/commencement.scm | 2 +- > guix/build/utils.scm | 25 +++++++------------------ > guix/packages.scm | 9 ++++++--- > guix/scripts/import/hackage.scm | 2 +- > guix/ui.scm | 4 ++-- > tests/graph.scm | 2 +- > tests/guix-build.sh | 4 ++-- > tests/guix-lint.sh | 2 +- > tests/guix-package.sh | 4 ++-- > tests/ui.scm | 6 +++--- > tests/utils.scm | 4 ++-- > 16 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
Does the fact that so many files needed to be edited indicate the need for a single specification string constructor? If this had already been the case, then this patch would have only needed to change 1 or 2 procedures. That's not to say that this isn't great work! I just think that we could ease the maintenance burden with some refactoring. - Dave