Re: package transformation and “guix graph”?

[Simon Tournier]

Hi,

(Well, something appears to me weird: rebuild Gnash which is a C++
software using another toolchain implies a Rust-world rebuild.)


On Wed, 03 May 2023 at 23:36, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Note that it’s not the same version (0.12.0 vs. 0.8.1), but the result
> is the same with 0.8.  The reason is that Rust packages aren’t like
> “real” packages; the sources are eventually aggregated in whatever
> package needs them.

Hum, ok.



>> $ guix graph --path gnash -e '(@@ (gnu packages gcc) gcc-11)' -t bag 
>> guix graph: error: no path from 'gnash@0.8.11-0.583ccbc' to 'gcc@11.3.0'
>
> That’s because you’re not looking at the “right” GCC 11 package object:

Hum, this “right” looks weird to me.  I read from (gnu packages gcc):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
;; Note: When changing the default gcc version, update
;;       the gcc-toolchain-* definitions.
(define-public gcc gcc-11)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Then from (gnu packages commencent):

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define gcc-boot0
  (package
    (inherit gcc)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Then,

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define gcc-final
  ;; The final GCC.
  (package (inherit gcc-boot0)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

And,

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public gcc-toolchain
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-final))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Well, I am lost with the difference between gcc-final and gcc-11.

Last, what lost me is this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define-public gcc-toolchain-4.8
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-4.8))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-4.9
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-4.9))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-5
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-5))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-6
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-6))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-7
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-7))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-8
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-8))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-9
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-9))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-10
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-10))

(define-public gcc-toolchain-11
  gcc-toolchain)

(define-public gcc-toolchain-12
  (make-gcc-toolchain gcc-12))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

compared to ’gcc-toolchain’ which uses gcc-final.  Why not gcc-11 as all
the others?  It would make it consistent with the rest, no?


Cheers,
simon