--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
No way of replacing an input in modify-input syntax structure but keep all the outputs |
|
Date: |
Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:09:41 +0000 |
poppler package include glib as a native-input with "bin" output.
If I am doing the following:
(package/inherit poppler
(native-inputs
(modify-inputs (package-native-inputs poppler)
(replace "glib" my-glib))))
poppler's build will fail becuase replace syntax will replace "glib"
package erasing its outputs. I can specify output explicitly by doing
(replace "glib" (my-glib "bin")) in this case, but that makes mass input
modification difficult (e.g. if i want to replace all instances of glib
to my-glib).
That said there is a value in having such behaviour for replace syntax
in case for example if I replace package with my own version that has no
extra outputs, so it would be nice to have both options available.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
|
Subject: |
Re: bug#53915: No way of replacing an input in modify-input syntax structure but keep all the outputs |
|
Date: |
Wed, 16 Mar 2022 15:53:49 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> skribis:
> Am Dienstag, dem 08.03.2022 um 17:11 +0100 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
>> [...]
>> With the patch below, we get more sensible behavior:
>>
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (modify-inputs (append $5 $4)
>> (replace "glib" xpdf))
>> $8 = (("glib" #<package xpdf@4.03 gnu/packages/pdf.scm:395
>> 7f9b1457c9a0>) ("pkg-config" #<package
>> pkg-config@0.29.2 gnu/packages/pkg-config.scm:36 7f9b13a30580>)
>> ("glib" #<package xpdf@4.03 gnu/packages/pdf.scm:395 7f9b1457c9a0>
>> "bin") ("gobject-introspection" #<package
>> gobject-introspection@1.66.1 gnu/packages/glib.scm:428
>> 7f9b12994e70>))
>> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>
>> If that makes sense to you, I’ll go ahead with this change and adjust
>> documentation accordingly.
> Sounds better than my own suggestion, since it'll keep working the way
> it did even when labels are eventually dropped.
Pushed with tests in 00dfff84c66c5c6aa4853684419a92befe55d4b4.
> If more control is needed, we can always later extend it to support
> (replace ("label" "output") (package output)). WDYT?
I’d rather not: the goal of ‘modify-inputs’ is to provide an interface
that works as if input labels didn’t exist, with an eye on removing them
entirely in the future:
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2021/the-big-change/
Regardless, we’ll have to keep an eye on all these corner cases and to
adjust the plan accordingly.
Thanks!
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---