Re: Canonical-packages restoration.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe@gnu.org> skribis:

>> What if, instead, we removed those “canonical” packages entirely from
>> the reference graph?  Do you think that’s an option?
>
> It seems to be a better option! So, as I did remove most of the explicit
> references to 'canonical-packages' the only references left are
> implicit.
>
> A good example is "isc-dhcp", that refers to implicit canonical inputs
> "coreutils" and "sed" in the "dhclient-script". The attached patch fixes
> it. I could do the same for a few other packages and it should fix the
> issue.

Yes, sounds good to me!

> The problem is that approach is not very long-term. Maybe we should take
> a step back. Would it be an option to add all the canonical-packages as
> disallowed-references?

Hmm yes, we could try that, but there’ll probably be many changes to
make.

> Or could we use implicit inputs that are not rooted in the bootstrap
> chain?

The problem is not that they’re rooted in the bootstrap chain (they
necessary build-depend on the bootstrap chain, but they’re guaranteed
not to have references to it).  The problem is that we have two copies
of all these: coreutils-final vs. coreutils, guile-final vs. guile, etc.

As things are, it seems hard to avoid.

>> Bah yes, that’s why initially I didn’t push ‘let-system’:
>>
>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/29296#4
>>
>> Perhaps we could avoid the expander = #f special case.
>
> Ok, I will try to fix it then.

No rush though, we can do that anytime.

Thanks,
Ludo’.