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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 26170 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
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: Thu, 17 Sep 2020 21:45:09 +0200

Hi,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de> skribis:

> 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.

Oh I see, that makes sense to me.  Go ahead!  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Previous Next

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