GNU bug report logs - #31178
[PATCH] gnu: Add inxi.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Oleg Pykhalov <go.wigust <at> gmail.com>
To: Pierre Neidhardt <ambrevar <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 31178 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, 31176 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#31178] [PATCH] gnu: Add inxi.
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 08:23:11 +0300

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

Hello Pierre and Ludovic,

Pierre Neidhardt <ambrevar <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I didn't know Oleg was going to submit a patch, maybe there was some
> confusion in the process :p

I've mentioned it in our mailing list discussion, see
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2018-04/msg00130.html

Nevertheless thank you for a 31178!  :-)

> I've quickly reviewed our two patches.  Overall I'd opt for mine :p
>
> - It's the latest version.
> - It has more inputs.

I thought that we stuck with an ‘inxi’ Perl script version (31178) and
there was no patch until I pushed one.  It's better to get 31178 version
than 31176 ofcourse because of ‘inxi’ version.

But I don't like all those ‘propagated-inputs’ except ‘perl-*’ and I
guess we could do better.  Maybe we could use PATH for non ‘perl-*’
inputs the same way as in 31176.  WDYT?

> I think we should use propagated-inputs and not native-inputs.  What do
> you think?

I'm not sure about 31178 currently.  Usually we prefer to avoid
‘propagated-inputs’ if possible in Guix, because all ‘propagated-inputs’
will be in a Guix profile and could lead to collisions.

If you are talking about 31176, then no, because I've used a wrapper to
find all ‘inxi-minimal’ or ‘inxi’ requisites.  It was easy to do,
because ‘inxi’ in 31176 is a Shell script, not a Perl script.  Thanks to
Chris Marusich for an idea.

[…]

[1]  https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=31176

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.