GNU bug report logs -
#61676
package transformations not honored working from a manifest
Previous Next
Full log
Message #8 received at 61676 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com> skribis:
> I was trying to simplify the Jami packaging tooling using the latest
> recursive '--with-source' transformation, like so (in a Makefile):
>
> define guix-pack-command
> guix pack -C xz -f deb -f extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-manifest.scm -v3 \
> --with-source=libjami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \
> --with-patch=libjami=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/patches/jami-disable-integration-tests.patch \
> --with-source=jami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \
> -S /usr/bin/jami=bin/jami \
> -S /usr/share/applications/jami.desktop=share/applications/jami.desktop \
> -S /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg=share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg \
> -S /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png=share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png \
> -S /usr/share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml=share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml \
> --postinst-file=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-deb.postinst
> endef
Interesting! :-)
> But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for
> the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the
> guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest.
Indeed, that’s expected.
> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any
> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,
> a file, a manifest or another means.
I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.
Incidentally, changing that would likely break existing workflows…
Ludo’.
This bug report was last modified 2 years and 133 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.