Subject: bug#32749: closed (Re: bug#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs)

From: [email-masked] (GNU bug Tracking System)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 20:43:02 +0000

Your bug report

#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs

which was filed against the guix package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to [email-masked].

-- 
32749: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32749
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact [email-masked] with problems

Subject: Re: bug#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs
From: [email-masked] (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 22:42:35 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[email-masked]> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:

[...]

>> I just realized that there’s already a fix for this, which is to pass
>> ‘package-with-explicit-inputs’ a procedure rather than the input list,
>> like this:
>>
>>   (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
>>                                 %bootstrap-inputs+toolchain
>>                                 …)
>>
>> Does it work for you?
>
> Yes!  I'm reverting my `...leak' commits and create thunks as input of
> package-with-explicit-inputs.  Thanks!

Awesome, thank you!

Ludo’.

Subject: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:03:10 +0200
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>

Hi!

Rewriting the bootstrap on the wip-bootstrap branch I found additional
inputs in packages that use `package-with-explicit-inputs', such as
diffutils-boot0.

I would expect diffutils-boot0 to list just one extra input in addition
to gnu-make-boot0; namely the package gnu-make-boot0; however it has
many more.

To reproduce this I created a test file with two simple packages
gnu-make-explicit-inputs, gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs.

Put the attached file in gnu/packages and producing a graph for both
test packages

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
11:56:03 janneke@dundal:~/src/guix-master 
$ ./pre-inst-env guix graph --type=bag -e '(begin (use-modules (guix packages)) (@@ (gnu packages pawei) gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs))' | wc -l
14
11:56:22 janneke@dundal:~/src/guix-master 
$ ./pre-inst-env guix graph --type=bag -e '(begin (use-modules (guix packages)) (@@ (gnu packages pawei) gnu-make-explicit-inputs))' | wc -l
79
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Should `package-with-explicit-inputs' behave like I think it does, i.e.,
should both test packages list the same dependencies, or am I missing
something?