[bug#61255] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"

[Maxim Cournoyer]

Hi Ludovic,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> I’m really not sure what the impact of
>> 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 is, nor whether it was the only
>> solution to the problem.
>>
>> One thing that probably happens is that (default-guile) is now never
>> used for <computed-file>, contrary to what was happening before.  The
>> spirit is that (default-guile) would be used as the default for all the
>> declarative file-like objects; gexp compilers refer to (default-guile),
>> not (%guile-for-build).
>>
>> Importantly, (%guile-for-build) is a derivation, possibly built for
>> another system, whereas (default-guile) is a package, which allows
>> ‘lower-object’ to return the derivation for the right system type.
>
> Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have
> unintended side effects:
>
>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841

Ugh.

> I fixed it with:
>
>   a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build.
>   fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild.
>
> Please take a look.

Thank you.  I still think it'd be nicer if computed-file had a means to
honor %guile-for-build rather than having to accommodate it specially as
you did in fee1d08f0d, so that it'd be symmetrical to gexp->derivation
in that regard.  Why can't they?

> We should think about how to improve our processes to avoid such issues
> in the future.  I did raise concerns about this very patch late at night
> during FOSDEM, 24h after submission, and reaffirmed my viewpoint days
> later.  I understand that delaying a nice patch series like this one is
> unpleasant, but I think those concerns should have been taken into
> account.

You are right, I should have delayed this submission passed its 2 weeks,
to let some extra time to look at alternatives w.r.t. the
%guile-for-build patch.  Apologies for being too eager!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim