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

Previous Next

Full log

Message #8 received at 26170 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: zimoun <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: 26170 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 
 "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian <at> pelzflorian.de>
Subject: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of propagated-inputs unclear
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 13:14:05 +0100

Dear Florian,

You report this bug [1] a couple of years ago about unclear
explanations of the term propagated-inputs.

[1] https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=26170

The explanations of propagated-inputs are here [2] and short words are
there [3]. Tey have not been changed since your report.

[2] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/package-Reference.html#package-Reference
[3] https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Invoking-guix-package.html#Invoking-guix-package


You proposed:

<<
 1) that `propagated-inputs` are automatically installed *to the Guix
profile* and not just the Store like regular inputs and
 2) that C/C++ libraries do not need to be propagated because they can
just as well be loaded from the Store *unless* their header files are
included by header files of another input package (?) and
 3) more examples like the above example for GNOME Evolution (which
however I have yet to finish packaging and submit as a patch; maybe
dconf is a better example – I presume it is also needed at run time and
not just).
>>

And I agree. I also had issue and I remember asking on IRC explanations.


Do you have already a patch? If no, do you plan to prepare one?


Thank you in advance for any comments.

All the best,
simon

Previous Next

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