GNU bug report logs - #31176
[PATCH] gnu: Add inxi.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #51 received at 31176 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
To: Peter Neidhardt <pe.neidhardt <at> googlemail.com>
Cc: 31178 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 31176 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#31178] [PATCH] gnu: Add inxi.
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 18:29:47 +0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello Peter,

I've removed Ludovic from a Cc because I think it doesn't seem a good
thing to disturb him with following questions.

Peter Neidhardt <pe.neidhardt <at> googlemail.com> writes:

> Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> OK, so if I understand correctly, only native-inputs get
>>> garbage-collected, right?
>>
>> Not quite, missing inputs (*not only* ‘(native-inputs …)’) in the output
>> of mentioned ‘guix gc’ command get garbage-collected.
>
> So what are the rules for garbage collection then?  I'm confused...
> I don't see how _some_ inputs could get garbage collected and others not.

When ‘guix gc --references PATH’ shows a ‘/gnu/store/…-INPUT’,
then ‘/gnu/store/…-INPUT’ *will not* be garbage collected.

For example:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix gc --references $(env GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH= guix build --no-grafts inxi)
[…]
/gnu/store/…-file-5.32
[…]
/gnu/store/…-xrandr-1.5.0
/gnu/store/…-xprop-1.2.3
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
‘file’, ‘xrandr’ and ‘xprop’ packages *will not* be garbage collected.

>>> If so, why are the perl plugins propagated-inputs and not just inputs?
>>
>> Good catch.  Yes, we could have Perl packages in ‘propagated-inputs’.
>
> You meant `inputs', right?

Yes, apologies for a mistyping.

Oleg.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Previous Next

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