[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?
From: |
Attila Lendvai |
Subject: |
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs? |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Sep 2021 10:06:02 +0000 |
> > What do you think of "build-propagated-inputs"?
>
> We don't call things build-inputs here in Guix land, that's a no-no :P
potentially worthless two cents from a newcomer's perspective:
'build-time' and 'run-time' are well established concepts in the wider
community.
if i were reading 'linked-inputs' in a package definition, i wouldn't
associate it to being the set of build-time dependencies.
the best name, from my admittedly uninformed perspective, would be
`build-time-inputs`.
- attila
PGP: 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxime Devos, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxime Devos, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxime Devos, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/05
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxime Devos, 2021/09/07
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, 宋文武, 2021/09/07
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxim Cournoyer, 2021/09/06