Subject: Re: bug#26170: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of propagated-inputs unclear

From: Ludovic Courtès <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 12:37:20 +0200

Hi,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email-masked]> skribis:

> From fd4955cd0a61e92c37a371e4c5411a505ad5ac76 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Florian Pelz <[email-masked]>
> Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2020 16:54:04 +0200
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Subject: [PATCH] doc: Clarify what propagated inputs are.
>
> Fixes <https://issues.guix.info/issue/26170>.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (package Reference)[package-propagated-inputs]: Clarify.
> ---
>  doc/guix.texi | 10 +++++-----
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
> index 1d6782e6fa..0a5640b174 100644
> --- a/doc/guix.texi
> +++ b/doc/guix.texi
> @@ -6360,21 +6360,21 @@ this area (@pxref{Invoking guix lint}).
>  
>  @anchor{package-propagated-inputs}
>  Lastly, @code{propagated-inputs} is similar to @code{inputs}, but the
> -specified packages will be automatically installed alongside the package
> +specified packages will be automatically installed to profiles (@pxref{Features, the role of profiles in Guix}) alongside the package

Like zimoun wrote, please introduce a newline.

>  Another example where @code{propagated-inputs} is useful is for languages
>  that lack a facility to record the run-time search path akin to the
>  @code{RUNPATH} of ELF files; this includes Guile, Python, Perl, and
> -more.  To ensure that libraries written in those languages can find
> -library code they depend on at run time, run-time dependencies must be
> -listed in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}.
> +more.  When packaging libraries written in those languages, ensure they can find
> +library code they depend on at run time by listing run-time dependencies
> +in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}.

I’m not convinced about this hunk; it uses imperative tense towards the
reader to state the same thing no?

Otherwise LGTM, thanks!

Ludo’.