[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Parameterized packages

From: zimoun
Subject: Re: Parameterized packages
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:30:28 +0100

Hi Pierre,

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 10:40, Pierre Neidhardt <address@hidden> wrote:

> - The source.
> - The explicit inputs.
> - the implicit inputs.
> - The build inputs.
> - The build system inputs.
> - Recursive inputs.
> - ...?
> Which one should we expose?  I don't know.  If we want the system to
> have some set of properties, I guess only the resulting packages matther
> and the build inputs don't.

But the resulting packages depends on the build inputs.
So if the resulting packages matter, then the build inputs too.

Well, you already described the issue here [1] (point 7.) -- if I
understand correctly.


> Should we touch implicit inputs, we would have to parse all the
> references and not just the explicit inputs like --with-input does.

My mind is not clear at all.

What is the final aim to have parametrized packages?
What does it mean "parametrized"?
Does it mean extend the transformation options as Ludo described [2].
Does it mean more?


> > but be able to
> > recompile a matrix of combinaison would be really cool!
> Indeed.  But now I'm starting to wonder if it is really doable :p

What I was thinking of is to parametrize only the build systems.

For example, be able to rebuild all the packages with GCC-8.3, or to
install Python packages with Python 3.5 instead of the current default
Python 3.7.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]