[bug#64155] [PATCH] gnu: emacs-piem: Update to 0.5.0.

[Jelle Licht]

Hi Andrew + peanut gallery,

Andrew Tropin <andrew@trop.in> writes:

> On 2023-06-18 21:38, jlicht@fsfe.org wrote:
>
>> From: Jelle Licht <jlicht@fsfe.org>
>>
>> * gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm (emacs-piem): Update to 0.5.0.
>> [propagated-inputs]: Add emacs-debbugs.
>> ---
>>
>>  gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm | 7 ++++---
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> index f46af73aec..08ec87b94c 100644
>> --- a/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm
>> @@ -8337,7 +8337,7 @@ (define-public emacs-debbugs
>>  (define-public emacs-piem
>>    (package
>>      (name "emacs-piem")
>> -    (version "0.4.0")
>> +    (version "0.5.0")
>>      (source
>>       (origin
>>         (method git-fetch)
>> @@ -8346,7 +8346,7 @@ (define-public emacs-piem
>>               (commit (string-append "v" version))))
>>         (file-name (string-append name "-" version "-checkout"))
>>         (sha256
>> -        (base32 "0wr6n6wvznngjdp4c0pmdr4xz05dark0kxi5svzhzxsg3rdaql3z"))))
>> +        (base32 "0smdb1iph2q1xvxix5c93llckcxh7kmhg6pxgyrm88j736m4l16q"))))
>>      (build-system emacs-build-system)
>>      (arguments
>>       (list #:phases
>> @@ -8359,7 +8359,8 @@ (define-public emacs-piem
>>      (inputs
>>       (list b4))
>>      (propagated-inputs
>> -     (list emacs-elfeed
>> +     (list emacs-debbugs
>> +           emacs-elfeed
>>             emacs-notmuch))
>>      (home-page "https://docs.kyleam.com/piem";)
>>      (synopsis "Glue for working with public-inbox archives")
>>
>> base-commit: 726f2a944730a1edbdbebfe57fb9e7e0ba47d83e
>
> Hi Jelle!
>
> Thank you very much for the patch.
>
> IMHO, optional dependencies should not be propagated.  On user side
> installing additional packages is easier than transforming existing
> package and removing unneeded propagated deps.  Personally, I would
> remove all the propagated inputs from piem and let the user install what
> he needs for his particular use case.

I'm of two minds, both for this particular patch, and the policy in
general. I understand the point you are making, and see the elegance of
offering a clean set of composable parts for users (and downstream) to
compose.

OTOH, it makes getting full-featured (and compiled) packages a chore,
where users or downstream has to pick up the slack. Put another
way; someone somewhere has to make a package variant if you want to
cover all use cases.

It is my understanding the guideline is (/was?) to have packages be
full-featured, and offer a '-minimal' version in cases where it makes
sense (e.g. bootstrapping, less-than-sane dependency graphs). If this
guideline has since changed, or (in this case) the Emacs teams decides
otherwise, that is something I'm obviously fine with. Some practical
tips on how to make byte compilation happen would still be appreciated
in that case :-).

All the best,
- Jelle