[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#62008] [PATCH 0/2] Update Disarchive to 0.5.0
From: |
Simon Tournier |
Subject: |
[bug#62008] [PATCH 0/2] Update Disarchive to 0.5.0 |
Date: |
Tue, 07 Mar 2023 11:43:35 +0100 |
Hi Ludo,
On mar., 07 mars 2023 at 10:49, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> For this package, I have a slight preference for keeping propagated
> inputs so that one can use Disarchive as a library.
Well, maybe I am missing a point but currently for Disarchive standalone,
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix shell -C disarchive -- disarchive disassemble hello-2.12.1
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
[...]
ice-9/boot-9.scm:3329:6: In procedure resolve-interface:
no code for module (gcrypt hash)
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
And I need to add Guile for triggering the search patch. And I find
that annoying,
$ guix shell -C disarchive guile -- disarchive disassemble hello-2.12.1
It does not appear to me straightforward to know that.
> WDYT?
Since we have two usages of Disarchive, the standalone CLI and the
library, maybe we should have two packages: disarchive and
guile-disarchive.
WDYT?
> Some comments while at it…
Thanks. That’s interesting because I took inspiration from the packages
Cuirass and Dezyne. :-)
>> + (let* ((effective
>> + (read (open-pipe* OPEN_READ
>> + (string-append #$guile-3.0
>> "/bin/guile")
>> + "-c" "(write
>> (effective-version))")))
>
> (guix build guile-build-system) exports ‘target-guile-effective-version’
> to do that; it’s more convenient.
I did not know. Well, I will adapt Cuirass and Dezyne too, IIUC. :-)
>> + (modules (list #$output
>> + #$guile-bytestructures
>> + #$guile-gcrypt
>> + #$guile-lzma))
>
> This should use (this-package-input "guile-bytestructures“) and similar,
> for consistency.
Ok. Just for my understanding about the "consistency”, is the procedure
’make-gitolite’ from (gnu packages version-conrol) consistent?
Cheers,
simon