GNU bug report logs - #32749
package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
Subject: bug#32749: closed (Re: bug#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs
 leaks-in additional inputs)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 20:43:02 +0000

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

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 32749 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
32749: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=32749
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: ludo <at> gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 32749-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 22:42:35 +0200

Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> 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’.

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:03:10 +0200

[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]

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 <at> 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 <at> 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?

[pawei.scm (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

[make-no-implicit-inputs.dot (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

[make-explicit-inputs.dot (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Previous Next

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