[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Design decision behind inputs/native-inputs/propagated-inputs

From: Steven Allen
Subject: Re: Design decision behind inputs/native-inputs/propagated-inputs
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 18:19:35 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/ (2014-03-12)


Replying back on list because I managed to take us off...

On 01-22-16, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> On 22/01/16 08:13, Steven Allen wrote:
> >Most distros distinguish between build dependencies and runtime
> >dependencies. Guix doesn't appear to have this distinction and I am
> >under the impression that it autodetects which inputs are needed at
> >runtime (as apposed to at compile time only) by scanning the output
> >files for references to files in the inputs. Is this not the case?
> In short, no.

> You could say it scans the derivation which includes a list of "runtime"
> dependencies i.e. inputs and propagated-inputs. Derivations are in a
> well-defined format that guix generates, and are just a way of keeping track
> of dependencies that are needed at runtime. Guix doesn't scan the binaries
> or shared libraries for instance. Indeed that would be mayhem as you
> suggest.

Thanks! That makes so much more sense. Just to be clear, given:

        (name "foo")
        (inputs `(("bar", bar)))
        (native-inputs `(("baz", baz)))

If I install "foo", "foo" will **always** be able to use the files in "bar"
but will not (may not?) be able to use the files in "baz"?

Sorry about the confusion...

Steven Allen
((Do Not Email <address@hidden>))

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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