|
From: | SeerLite |
Subject: | [bug#54221] [PATCH 3/4] gnu: vim: Update package style. |
Date: | Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:49:44 -0300 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1 |
Hi, thanks for the review! On 3/2/22 14:29, Maxime Devos wrote:
This is test stuff, and these binaries do not seem to be present in 'inputs', they would be in the implicit 'native-inputs', so these would need to search in '(or native-inputs inputs)' instead of 'inputs' to avoid &search-path exceptions when cross-compiling: (substitute* '("src/testdir/...") (("/bin/sh") (search-input-file (or native-inputs inputs) "bin/sh"))) Or simpler, there's a procedure for looking for 'bin/TOOL' in native- inputs: 'which'! ;; the original code! (substitute* '("src/testdir/...") (("/bin/sh") (which "sh")))
Whoops, I forgot I made this change.
Why the change from 'which' to 'search-input-file'?
The blog post that introduces label-less inputs also introduces 'search-input-file', which made me think they were both part of the "package definition modernization process".
I asked on IRC if that was the case, and although I didn't get a clear answer for that, someone told me they preferred using 'search-input-file' because it raises an exception when no file is found.
What do you think about that? Should I stick with 'search-input-file' or is 'which' alright?
It makes sense that I'd have to use native-inputs though. My bad!
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |