GNU bug report logs - #26170
documentation: Explanation of propagated-inputs unclear

Previous Next

Full log

Message #26 received at 26170 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 26170 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Subject: Re: bug#26170: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of
 propagated-inputs unclear
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 15:27:52 +0200

On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de> skribis:
> >  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?

The difference is “When packaging libraries”.  I suppose the intention
is that propagated-inputs be declared as part of library packages and
not as part of the application using those libraries.  I am unsure if
I understand correctly if “When packaging libraries” is not explicitly
stated.

Regards,
Florian

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.