[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Make "guix-devel" a public variable in package-manageme
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Make "guix-devel" a public variable in package-management.scm |
Date: |
Sun, 30 Oct 2016 23:21:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
> Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> [...]
>
>>> (define-public guix guix-devel)
>>>
>>> +(define-public guix-for-environment
>>> + ;; We provide this pseudo-package just to allow people to run:
>>> + ;; guix environment guix-devel
>>> + ;; to reliably get the development environment for Guix (using 'guix' for
>>> + ;; this purpose does not work when 'guix' points to the
>>> built-from-tarball
>>> + ;; package rather than to the built-from-checkout package.)
>>> + (package
>>> + (inherit guix-devel)
>>> + (name "guix-devel")
>>> + (source #f) ;not meant to be built
>>> + (supported-systems '())))
>>> +
>>> (define (source-file? file stat)
>>> "Return true if FILE is likely a source file, false if it is a typical
>>> generated file."
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> If that’s fine with you, could you incorporate it in your patch?
>>
>> Sounds good to me. I've attached the updated patch to this email and
>> mentioned you as co-author. The new package fails to build with a
>> cryptic error, but since it isn't meant to be built, that seems OK.
>>
>> What is the purpose of temporarily changing the "guix" variable to refer
>> to the release package (as in commit 4420940f)? Because it usually
>> refers to the development version, wouldn't it be better to make the
>> "guix" variable ALWAYS refer to the development version? It isn't clear
>> to me why we need to temporarily change this variable to refer to the
>> release version.
>
> Somehow this question turned out to be difficult to answer to me, which
> contributed to the delay. ;-)
>
> I think you’re right: in a way, this is a bit silly. This is a purist’s
> approach (when we have the tarball, no need to depend on Autoconf et
> al.), but it would work just fine if we simply added the ‘native-inputs’
> currently on ‘guix-devel’ to ‘guix-0.11.0’ itself.
>
> If there are no objections, I’ll just do that.
Pushed as a7db8540a712b039aa518bfc4c58e7a6ce823858.
Ludo’.