Re: What build system would be more appropriate for this application

[Luis Felipe]

Hello Luis Felipe,

On Tuesday, September 6th, 2022 at 22:54, Luis Felipe 
<luis.felipe.la@protonmail.com> wrote:

> This way, the package builds and I'm able to run the application in a guix 
> shell. However, as the comments above indicate, I'd like to
> 

> 1. Indicate the destination for the "mazo" Python package using 
> GUIX_PYTHONPATH instead of the hardcoded path.
> 2. Make sure the "bin/mazo" file is executable (the source, "mazo.py", is 
> executable, though).
> 3. Run tests
> 

> Do you think I can achieve these sticking to the copy-build-system, or would 
> it be necessary to resort to meson or similar build systems?

I found that using the python-build-system was more appropriate after all, even 
though the application doesn't use setuputils or anything like that.

To address problem (1), I found that once you use the python-build-system, a 
"site-packages" procedure becomes available. It returns the appropriate path 
were to place Python packages. The "site-packages" procedure is not documented 
in the manual, though. The procedure is defined in the module "(guix build 
python-build-system)". Grepping for "site-packages" in Guix package definitions 
shows lots of examples.

To address problem (2), there's Guile's "chmod" procedure. For example: (chmod 
"myscript" #o555). Plenty of examples in Guix packages too.

As for (3), I could replace the check phase normally, in the same way it is 
done in many package definitions.

So now I have a package definition I will be sending soon for review :)

publickey - luis.felipe.la@protonmail.com - 0x12DE1598.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature