GNU bug report logs -
#32749
package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs
Previous Next
Full log
Message #20 received at 32749 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> I tried this! The dependencies look OK, but the package won't build --
>> there's no tar, make etc.
>
> Ah, true!
>
>> ...but that looks a bit strange: if we have to mention the inputs a
>> second time the advantage over using the `gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs'
>> package description becomes real small?
>
> The key thing is that ‘package-with-explicit-inputs’ works recursively:
> it adds (it does *not* replace) inputs to the whole package graph.
Ah, cool!
> Consider this:
>
> (define x
> (let ((p (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
> (%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain)
> …)))
> …))
>
> Here ‘%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain’ is called from the top level, when
> ‘%current-system’ has its default value. So if you’re on x86_64, you
> get the x86_64 inputs.
Doh'! The let is at toplevel...yeah that makes sense.
> So it’s not a bug per se, but it’s definitely an annoyance.
I agree, indeed it's rather a problem of interaction between
--system/(%current-system).
> 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!
janneke
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 251 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.