[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#26170: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of propagated-inputs unc
pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
bug#26170: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of propagated-inputs unclear
Wed, 9 Sep 2020 17:10:21 +0200
Thank you for bringing up this bug again with detailed
cross-referencing. Sorry for not sending a patch earlier.
I do not think it makes sense to close yet. I attach a proposed patch
now (its text is not properly wrapped yet). It may contain
misunderstandings about propagated inputs as I have not packaged much.
On Wed, Sep 09, 2020 at 03:25:31PM +0200, zimoun wrote:
> Currently, the term “propagated inputs” in the index  goes to the
> section “Invoking guix package”  and explaining:
> Sometimes packages have propagated inputs: these are
> dependencies that automatically get installed along with the
> required package (see propagated-inputs in package objects, for
> information about propagated inputs in package definitions).
> An example is the GNU MPC library: its C header files refer to
> those of the GNU MPFR library, which in turn refer to those of
> the GMP library. Thus, when installing MPC, the MPFR and GMP
> libraries also get installed in the profile; removing MPC also
> removes MPFR and GMP—unless they had also been explicitly
> installed by the user.
> with the hyperlink  mentioning:
Note the text currently in the manual is the same as back then when I
filed the bug.
When starting to read about propagated inputs in the documentation of
`guix package --install`, I agree, it is clear enough, the reader will
understand that propagated inputs get treated like with `guix package
--install` and the reader need not think about profiles and the store.
However, back then I may have gotten confused because I started off
reading the Defining Packages section without the context of `guix
package --install`. In this context, I may have been thinking of
installation to a directory rather than a user running `guix install`.
> 3) more examples like the above example for GNOME Evolution (which
> however I have yet to finish packaging and submit as a patch; maybe
> dconf is a better example – I presume it is also needed at run time and
> not just).
I was mistaken about 3). I am glad Ricardo Wurmus packaged Evolution.
Apparently I was wrong and evolution does not need
evolution-data-server as a propagated-input.
Description: Text document