guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[bug#61255] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"


From: Maxim Cournoyer
Subject: [bug#61255] [PATCH 0/5] Add support for the RPM format to "guix pack"
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 10:12:30 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)

Hi Ludovic!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

> Hi Maxim,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> * guix/gexp.scm (computed-file): Set the default value of the #:guile 
>>>> argument
>>>> to that of the %guile-for-build parameter.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>  (define* (computed-file name gexp
>>>> -                        #:key guile (local-build? #t) (options '()))
>>>> +                        #:key (guile (%guile-for-build))
>>>> +                        (local-build? #t) (options '()))
>>>
>>> I think that would lead ‘computed-file’ to pick (%guile-for-build) at
>>> the wrong time (time of call instead of time of lowering).
>>>
>>> Commit ab25eb7caaf5571cc9f8d6397a1eae127d7e29d1 made it #f such that
>>> ‘gexp->derivation’ gets to resolve it at the “right” time.
>>
>> I see!  I think you are right.  Would making the change in the
>> associated gexp compiler do the right thing?  Currently it ignores the
>> %guile-for-build fluid as set in the tests/pack.scm test suite for
>> example.  Something like this:
>
> I don’t fully understand the context.  My preference would go to doing
> like the ‘computed-file’ tests in ‘tests/gexp.scm’, where we explicitly
> pass #:guile %bootstrap-guile.

With the refactoring done in patch 3/5 ("pack: Extract
populate-profile-root from self-contained-tarball/builder."), a
computed-file is used in the factorized building block
'populate-profile-root'.  Without this patch, the tests making use of it
would attempt to build Guile & friends in the test store.

> That said, it seems like patch #5 in this series doesn’t actually use
> ‘computed-file’ in ‘tests/pack.scm’, does it?

It does, indirectly.

I hope that helps!

-- 
Thanks,
Maxim





reply via email to

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