[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 02/02: gnu: camlp4: Remove extra input.
From: |
Efraim Flashner |
Subject: |
Re: 02/02: gnu: camlp4: Remove extra input. |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Oct 2015 23:45:20 +0300 |
On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:36:52 +0200
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
> Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> skribis:
>
> > commit d04efa0fff908de0f8822a27582b4b1c3dcae553
> > Author: Efraim Flashner <address@hidden>
> > Date: Wed Oct 7 14:44:59 2015 +0300
> >
> > gnu: camlp4: Remove extra input.
> >
> > * gnu/packages/ocaml.scm (camlp4)[inputs]: Removed duplicate "ocaml"
> > entry from native-inputs.
> > ---
> > gnu/packages/ocaml.scm | 3 +--
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm b/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm
> > index fc45805..0302c85 100644
> > --- a/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm
> > +++ b/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm
> > @@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ Git-friendly development workflow.")
> > "0icdfzhsbgf89925gc8gl3fm8z2xzszzlib0v9dj5wyzkyv3a342"))
> > (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz"))))
> > (build-system gnu-build-system)
> > - (native-inputs `(("ocaml" ,ocaml)
> > - ("which" ,which)))
> > + (native-inputs `(("which" ,which)))
> > (inputs `(("ocaml" ,ocaml)))
>
> This was probably correct: When cross-compiling, you would both need the
> compiler (in ‘native-inputs’) and the run-time support library (thus in
> ‘inputs’.)
>
> Now, this is mostly theoretical in this case because it would probably
> take more than this to cross-compile OCaml code.
>
> Ludo’.
Should I go ahead and revert the change? I was starting to work on getting
opam to build and I noticed this. I suppose at a minimum it doesn't hurt to
have it in native-inputs and in inputs, it just didn't look right.
--
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
pgprBcIndVRTW.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature