GNU bug report logs -
#26150
[PATCH 0/15]: Add pplacer and OCaml dependencies.
Previous Next
Reported by: Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft <at> uq.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 00:38:02 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft <at> uq.edu.au>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your bug report
#26150: [PATCH 0/15]: Add pplacer and OCaml dependencies.
which was filed against the guix-patches package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 26150 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
--
26150: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=26150
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Hi Ludo,
On 05/04/17 23:18, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft <at> uq.edu.au> skribis:
> [...]
>
>> +(define package-with-ocaml4.01
>> + (package-with-explicit-ocaml (delay (default-ocaml4.01))
>> + (delay (default-ocaml4.01-findlib))
>> + "ocaml-" "ocaml4.01-"
>> + #:variant-property 'ocaml4.01-variant))
> I choked for a few hours on this one, my main problem being that I
> didn’t want us to duplicate the logic from build-system/python.scm.
> This led to commits f37f2b83fa95c1fe2bf01c4b8072cfc23d4c67ec and
> 1618006d0bc9bfdc63f4d199fd980f29ecc78ec4.
>
> Is the “variant” property really needed? In Python it’s needed because
> the 2.x variants sometimes need a different set of dependencies that
> ‘package-with-python2’ cannot automatically guess. Conversely,
> ‘package-with-guile-2.0’ has no need for that.
>
> If the variant is not needed, then I recommend using
> ‘package-with-input-rewriting’.
>
> If the variant is needed, then could you use ‘package-mapping’ as in
> 1618006d0bc9bfdc63f4d199fd980f29ecc78ec4?
I ended up pushing this series, ending in
c033f5d6b5b565c43588d25b7b47d177f0c0933c.
There was one package where a different set of inputs was required
(ocaml4.01-bisect), so I used 'package-mapping' as suggested. Your
solution seemed very clean to me, thank you for spending those few hours.
> [...]
>> + (home-page "http://matsen.fhcrc.org/pplacer")
>> + (license license:gpl3))))
> Version 3 only?
Afraid so.
>> +;; This package is installed alongside 'pplacer'. It is a separate package so
>> +;; that it can use the python-build-system for the scripts that are
>> +;; distributed alongside the main OCaml binaries.
>> +(define pplacer-scripts
>> + (package
>> + (inherit pplacer)
>> + (name "pplacer-scripts")
> Maybe add a different synopsis?
OK, good.
> Apologies for taking so long!
Not at all, thank your for help. Very happy to see this package in Guix
at last.
ben
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Ludo, thanks for the feedback.
On 06/03/17 19:16, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft <at> uq.edu.au> skribis:
>
>> On 10/02/17 08:32, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Hi Ben,
>>>
>>> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft <at> uq.edu.au> skribis:
>>>
>>>> I'm quite happy to send these patches in, pplacer has been near the
>>>> top of my most wanted list since I started contributing. There's two
>>>> parts that are a little out of the ordinary:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Unfortunately pplacer requires the outdated OCaml 4.01, so I
>>>> adapted the package-with-python2 approach.
>>> Is there really no way upstream could update the package to current
>>> OCaml? That would save us a lot of packages and associated work.
>> I'm afraid I don't think so. I asked about this, but haven't received
>> a response for 3 weeks.
>> https://github.com/matsen/pplacer/issues/354
>>
>> The recommended way of installing this software is to download
>> binaries, so updating the OCaml dependency may not be at the top of
>> the priority list. This is maintained software and there's a number of
>> pieces of software which rely on pplacer (including a few of my own),
>> so I think it is worth packaging. So, IMO we should wear the costs on
>> this one.
> OK, that makes sense.
>
> To make progress, how about applying the non-4.01-specific parts of the
> patch series first (I think you didn’t get any feedback on these, so
> it’s safe to assume they’re OK if ‘guix lint’ has nothing to say)?
>
> Second, could you submit the bits about supporting 4.01 to guix-patches?
> I’ll take a look if nobody beats me at it.
OK. I've pushed the non-4.01-specific parts to master, and attached here
a modified patch series which contains the rest. There's 15 steps but
most are quite trivial.
Thanks, ben.
[pplacer_v2.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 14 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.