Re: [PATCH 1/2] gnu: Add cargo.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Chris Marusich <address@hidden> skribis:

> David Craven <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> I understand that this is some sort of mechanism to enable cargo to build 
>>> things
>>> offline, but is it appropriate to put all of those other packages'
>>> source into the "cargo" package that is going to be built by Guix?  I
>>> haven't been following the Cargo/Rust in Guix discussion thread, so it's
>>> entirely possible I just missed something that was already discussed.
>>
>> No it is not appropriate. There has been a lot of discussion if it is ok to 
>> take
>> shortcuts or not, I think the general opinion is that it is not ok.
>> But it is a way to
>> build cargo without a lot of work, since there are a couple of issues that 
>> need
>> to be addressed by the cargo-build-system, specifically the importer.
>
> I see.  Since I haven't been involved in the discussion so far, I think
> I'll defer to others for further comment on that topic.
>
>>> OK.  That makes sense.  But I wonder why cmake and pkg-config are
>>> missing from the list of references if that is the case?
>>
>> Wow, I don't know what I was thinking, I was convinced that cmake and 
>> pkg-config
>> where retained inputs :) They should be propagated-inputs
>> then... Thanks!
>
> Although making them propagated-inputs might work, another solution
> might be to use 'wrap-program' to wrap cargo's executable(s).  For
> example, this is what we did when we packaged Asunder:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-12/msg00707.html
>
> Wrapping the program might not be appropriate in every case (see email
> thread discussion), but if it's appropriate in this case, it's a great
> way to avoid propagated-inputs.

Agreed, though that shouldn’t block the patch.

David, could you address this cmake/pkg-config issue (one way or the
other) and add answers to some of the questions Chris asked as comments
in the code?  LGTM with these changes!

Thank you!

Ludo’.