Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> skribis:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:54:28AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis:
[...]
>> What about this:
>>
>
>> --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm
>> @@ -345,6 +345,14 @@ instead of @command{python3}.")))
>> (define-public python-wrapper (wrap-python3 python))
>> (define-public python-minimal-wrapper (wrap-python3 python-minimal))
>>
>> +(define (package-with-python2+setuptools p)
>> + (let ((base (package-with-python2 (strip-python2-variant p))))
>> + (package
>> + (inherit base)
>> + (native-inputs `(("python2-setuptools" ,python2-setuptools)
>> + ,@(package-native-inputs base))))))
>> +
>> +
>> (define-public python-psutil
>> (package
>> (name "python-psutil")
>
>>
>> Then we need to change all the occurrences of this pattern to use this
>> new procedure.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ludo’.
>
> Would we still need the properties field in python-foo?
Yes.
> What would this mean for packages that need python2-setuptools and other
> python2- specific packages? Specifically, would all the calls to
> package-native-inputs cause a slowdown in computing the package?
It wouldn’t change anything, since this exact same pattern is already
used in many different places in python.scm (search for
“python2-setuptools” and you’ll see :-)). It would simply allow us to
factorize it.
Ludo’.
