GNU bug report logs - #34358
[PATCH] gnu: python@2.7: Honor NIX_STORE.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>
To: Caleb Ristvedt <caleb.ristvedt <at> cune.org>
Cc: ludo <at> gnu.org, 34358 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#34358] [PATCH] gnu: python <at> 2.7: Honor NIX_STORE.
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 19:31:19 -0700

Hello,

Caleb Ristvedt <caleb.ristvedt <at> cune.org> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Perhaps in the future you could email guix-patches <at> gnu.org for specific
>> commits like this one, especially when it’s not strictly related to the
>> daemon?
>
> ...
>
>> Could you send an updated version of the patch?
>
> Here it is!
>
>> ./configure does not generate any patch files based on patch templates,
>> and that’s on purpose.  Instead, when we need something like this, we
>> handle it the way ld-wrapper.in is handled: by doing the substitution
>> when creating the derivation.
>
> "When creating the derivation" sounds like it's when the package is lowered
> to a derivation, but from what I can see of ld-wrapper in (gnu packages
> base) the actual substitution is done when the derivation is built. I
> am curious how one would go about doing the substitution when the
> package is lowered to a derivation, though. Anyway, for now I'm doing
> the substitution at derivation-build-time.
>
>> Last, the patch would need to go to ‘core-updates’ because of the number
>> of rebuilds it entails.
>
> Should I mention this somewhere?
>
> Also, I should add that "guix lint" and indent-code.el both want changes
> to gnu/packages/python.scm, but not due to changes I made. Should a
> separate patch address those?
>
> - reepca
>
>From 62e9e9a336ab5608405df8114f78c3cbb9dc3a39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Caleb Ristvedt <caleb.ristvedt <at> cune.org>
>Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:00:32 -0600
>Subject: [PATCH] gnu: python <at> 2.7: Honor NIX_STORE.
>
>Previously various python packages would fail to work unless the store they
>were kept in was /gnu/store. This fixes that.
>
>* gnu/packages/patches/python-2.7-site-prefixes.patch.in: New file that causes
>  python <at> 2.7 to honor NIX_STORE at runtime or, if it isn't set, to use the
>  NIX_STORE available when it was built.
>
>* gnu/packages/patches/python-2.7-site-prefixes.patch: Removed.
>
>* gnu/packages/python.scm (python-2.7): generates a patch from
>  python-2.7-site-prefixes.patch.in at build-time and applies it.
>  (python-3.7): don't apply that patch.
>  (python2-minimal): inputs still need to include the patch utility and the
>  patch.
>
>* gnu/local.mk: adjust patch name since it's been suffixed with ".in".

Given that Python 2.7 is now EOL and Python 3 doesn't seem to use this
NIX_STORE patch in the first place, is this patch still relevant?

--
Sarah

Previous Next

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