GNU bug report logs - #65550
Don't add propagated-inputs for all outputs

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 65550 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler <at> gmail.com>
To: 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> envs.net>
Cc: 65550 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 宋文武 <iyzsong <at> member.fsf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] profiles: Don't propagate inputs for non-development
 packages.
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2023 11:31:33 +0200

Am Sonntag, dem 27.08.2023 um 15:30 +0800 schrieb 宋文武:
> > Instead, we could for the time being solve this with yet another
> > package property.
> >   '((propagate-inputs-from "lib")) ; but not out
> >   '((propagate-inputs-from . ("lib"))) ; same meaning, different
> > style
> >   '((propagate-inputs-from "out" "lib")) ; but not doc
> > If the property is missing, we still propagate from all outputs, as
> > is currently done.
> > 
> > WDYT?
> 
> Yes, a property is more flexible here, haven't think about it.  Well
> I wishful think if we always follow a good convention (put
> development files in "dev" or "out"), then maybe we can saving some
> bytes in code?  I'd like to split more packages with multiple outputs
> with "dev" to see how the convention works out.  If not then we could
> take this 'property' way.
I'd really like to avoid yet another special output, when "bin", "lib",
etc. have already been given clear meanings, one of which strongly
overlaps with "stuff that wants propagated inputs for pkg-config
reasons".

The only package that currently has a "dev" output is mariadb, and it's
quite an odd one, as "dev" has been introduced to reduce closure size,
not to propagate even more.  I don't think that hardcoding output names
works given this precedent.  At the very least, "dev" is the wrong
choice.

Cheers

Previous Next

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