GNU bug report logs -
#72925
Adding JPM package for Janet
Previous Next
Full log
Message #162 received at 72925 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Omar Bassam <omar.bassam88 <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>>>>>>>>> What we need is _some_ mechanism to ensure that when jpm invokes gcc (or
>>>>>>>>> g++), the compiler is able to locate the appropriate header files.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This should be doable without propagating any other inputs. For example
>>>>>>>>> by ensuring that jpm sets appropriate environment variables (such as
>>>>>>>>> $CPATH , $C_INCLUDE_PATH , $CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH etc.) or flags when
>>>>>>>>> invoking the compiler. If so, that would be the preferred approach. We
>>>>>>>>> only want to propagate those inputs that are strictly necessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I look forward to seeing what you come up with in v11 :)
>>>
>>> I.e., it's not clear to me that propagating gcc and g++ is necessary.
>>> And if the same can be achieved by passing appropriate environment
>>> variables, why not? Could you please answer?
>>>
>>> Regardless, we are in agreement that the propagation of gcc-toolchain is
>>> not necessary and should be removed.
>>>
>>
>> I've now removed gcc from the propagated-inputs I've tested passing the
>> gcc to jpm using the --cc flag as follows "jpm build --cc=/path/to/gcc".
>
> Am I understanding correctly that, with v11 in order for the user to be
> able to install a Janet package such as "sh", they have to find the
> location of gcc being used by jpm and pass that to it?
>
> If so, why? This is not what I tried to explain above. The jpm package
> "knows" the specific version of gcc (and g++) that have been patched in,
> so why does it require the user to take additional action? I.e., the
> goal, IMHO, should be that in a pure container that contains nss-certs,
> one is simply able to run "jpm install -l sh" and it works.
>
No, the user doesn't need to specify the flag if the gcc package is
available in their shell (or pure container shell). I was just testing
that you can pass the C flags that you were concerned about from before.
I am still not sure if I fully understood your C paths cocern correctly.
>> I hope I understood your concern correctly this time.
>
> I don't believe so.
>
>> If not, please feel free to add to the patch whatever you think is
>> needed as I'm not a C compiling expert.
>
> Sorry, but I am no C compiling expert either.
>
> In addition, for the past few exchanges, it's not clear that I am able
> to bring value to the discussion. As evidenced by the recent exchanges,
> I seem to be struggling with expressing myself effectively. As such, I
> will step-away from actively reviewing this issue.
>
On the contrary, I've learned so much from your comments and I really
appreciate your patience. I believe it's my lack of understanding of
guix packagin philosophy as this is my first time diving into the source
code of Guix.
> I hope you are able to get jpm upstreamed with help from jgart and
> others more experienced than myself.
Thank you, if it ever get upstreamed it will be mostly becuase of your
comments, knowledge sharing and patience that I really appreciate.
Many Thanks,
Omar
This bug report was last modified 137 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.