[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Apr 2022 23:38:57 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
Olivier Dion <olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I require debugging symbols of multiple packages. Some of them
>>> already have a debug output from the main guix channel, but others
>>> don't. So I had in mind to make a channel and publish the
>>> substitutes with the debug outputs.
>>
>> In general, if you need debug symbols for something, I think it's OK
>> to contribute adding them to Guix proper (in a debug output), unless
>> they make like >= 1 GiB (as I can imagine may be the case for IceCat).
>
> Okay I will try. I'm not sure how easy it is so add debug symbols to some
> packages e.g. git, nginx. In any case I need them, so I will contribute
> back to the main channel if it works.
When the package uses the gnu-build-system, it is usually just adding a
"debug" outputs and the copying of the stripped symbols to this output
is taken care of automatically. Some packages use their own flags or a
release build without symbols in which case just adding "debug" alone
won't be enough.
>>> How could I make sure that Guix use my version of Firefox over the one
>>> defined by the main channel? My guess is to change the name of my
>>> package to something like "my-firefox". But it would be nicer if I
>>> don't have to do so. Perhaps there's a way to force channel
>>> preference?
>>
>> Channels can only extend, not override the default Guix channel (the
>> world would be a bit of a mess if it did). So the easiest path is to
>> use a different name; alternatively for graph rewriting you could use
>> the various APIs to effect package transformations.
>
> Would be nice to have some way to specify channel in a package
> specification. I don't think that it would break things if we
> considerer channels as namespaces, i.e. different graph. A
> specification like:
>
> {channel}package@version:output
>
> would be useful. For now I will just rename them to "my/package".
That could be neat, yes. I wonder how easy/difficult its implementation
would be.
Thanks,
Maxim
- Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Olivier Dion, 2022/04/21
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Maxim Cournoyer, 2022/04/22
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, zimoun, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Ricardo Wurmus, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Olivier Dion, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Ricardo Wurmus, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Olivier Dion, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Ricardo Wurmus, 2022/04/29
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, Olivier Dion, 2022/04/28
- Re: Questions regarding substitutes with debug output, zimoun, 2022/04/29