Subject: Re: Understanding #:substitutable? and #55231

From: Ian Eure <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2025 17:06:49 -0800

Hi Morgan,

Morgan Arnold via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System 
distribution." <[email-masked]> writes:

> Hello,
>
> If the issue is simply that the patch has not been rebased 
> against a
> new enough version of Guix to be merged, I am happy to do that
> rebasing. Additionally, please correct me if I have made any 
> incorrect
> assertions above.
>

It does seem that #55231 ended up in a place where there was 
concensus that it was acceptable, but didn’t get merged for some 
reason or other.  I definitely could be wrong, but I suspect the 
issue is that when non-#:substitutable? packages are used in 
places other than package inputs, the downstream derivations don’t 
carry that information.  I believe when used as a package input, 
non-#:substitutable? packages do, in fact, poison all downstream 
derivations.  Happy to be corrected if I’m wrong here.

I think it’s reasonable to merge this after it’s rebased on 
current master, and would be willing to do that unless Maxime or 
Ludo’ raise an objection.

However, you resent a v1 patch to a bug where four versions has 
already been sent.  If you’d be willing to resend as v5 (with `git 
format-patch -v5 -2'), I can get it pushed.

Thanks,

  -- Ian