[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs? |
Date: |
Sun, 05 Sep 2021 21:18:00 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.2 |
Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op zo 05-09-2021 om 18:50 [+0200]:
>
[...]
> > (Feel free to suggest a more concise name.)
> Since "propagated" is already given by propagated-inputs, what about
> simply having #:by?
> E.g. something like: [...]
> (define glib
> (package
> (name "glib")
> (outputs '("out" ; everything
> "bin")) ; glib-mkenums ... depends on Python
> (propagated-inputs
> `(("pcre" ,pcre #:by ("out")) ; future-proof #:by
> ("libffi" ,libffi #:by ("out")) ; have it be a list
> [...]))
That looks nice, thanks.
> I'm not sure whether we need to necessarily add a new "build" output
> for pkg-config, that'd lead to a lot of doubly-propagated includes.
> (Imagine both libffi and libffi:build etc.) I think the more
> meaningful division here would be to add "bin" or "lib" outputs to
> those packages, where we don't want propagation to continue
> indefinitely.
Putting pkg-config files into the "lib" or "out" output (together with shared
libraries)
seems reasonable to me ("lib" if the package is usually used as a binary,
but also has libaries with pkg-config files, and "out" if it is usually
used as a library).
> This does cause problems with language bindings though,
> e.g. pygobject, as those also propagate the package in question and
> can't be neatly separated.
python-pygobject can just keep everything in the output "out",
and let glib and libffi be propagated by "out", no? I don't see
how this would cause trouble for language bindings.
> > Now, imagine the "build" output of "zile" had glib:build in
> > propagated-inputs, using the scheme described above. Then, if the
> > "out" output of zile is installed in a profile, that doesn't cause
> > glib to appear in the profile as well, because glib
> > is only propagated for the "build" output of zile, and not for "out"
> > output of zile.
> >
> > However, if "build" is installed in the profile (e.g. because someone
> > runs "guix environment --ad-hoc zile:build various compilation tools"
> > to create an application using the zile library), then the .pc
> > becomes available in the profile.
> I must admit that this solution appears to have some surface elegance,
> but what exactly would go in the "build" output of a package? You
> mentioned pkg-config files (obviously), but those don't suffice to
> actually build a package, do they?
Sometimes they do suffice. The .pc files contain the "-L/.../LIB",
"-I/.../include" and "-lstuff" flags needed for compilation. If the
build system of the package uses pkg-config, it will use those flags,
so the compiler will find the library in that case.
Not sure if they always do suffice.
> Would we need an extra syntax to
> e.g. propagate the "out" output by "build" (and in some cases the "lib"
> output instead)?
Not if .pc files are put in "out" (or "lib" in some cases) instead of the
originally proposed "build", but otherwise, possibly?
Greetings,
Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
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 <=
- 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
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/06
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Sarah Morgensen, 2021/09/07
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/08
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, iskarian, 2021/09/08