[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: valgrind
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: valgrind |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Jan 2023 13:39:29 +0100 |
Hi,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 12:01, Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> (define-public valgrind
> (package
> (name "valgrind")
> (version "3.17.0")
> (properties '((hidden? . #t)))))
>
> (define-public valgrind/interactive
> (package/inherit
> valgrind
> (version "3.17.0")
>
> (define-public valgrind-3.20
> (package
> (inherit valgrind/interactive)
> (version "3.20.0")
> Is version 3.17 really needed? Is the distinction between the hidden package
> and the "interactive" package still important?
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix refresh -l -e '(@ (gnu packages valgrind) valgrind)'
Building the following 544 packages would ensure 1085 dependent packages are
rebuilt:
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
I guess, the symbol ’valgrind’ refers to a minimal version of Valgrind
used by many packages. Well, I guess again that ’valgrind-minimal’
could be a better name. :-)
Both ’valgrind/interactive’ and ’valgrind-3.20’ provides what user
expects with Valgrind but at 2 different versions.
Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with valgrind@3.17
needed? Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken
for some use-case.
Cheers,
simon