Ludovic Courtès writes:
> The difference comes from the fact that ‘gnu-make-explicit-inputs’ has
> Guile in its ‘inputs’:
Ah, I missed that!
> scheme@(gnu packages pawei)> (package-direct-inputs gnu-make-explicit-inputs)
> $5 = (("libc" #<package glibc-bootstrap@0 gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150
> 3d216c0>) ("gcc" #<package gcc-bootstrap@0 gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150
> 3d21600>) ("binutils" #<package binutils-bootstrap@0
> gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150 3d21540>) ("coreutils&co" #<package
> bootstrap-binaries@0 gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150 3d21480>) ("bash"
> #<package bootstrap-binaries@0 gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150 3d21480>)
> ("guile" #<package guile@2.0.14 gnu/packages/bootstrap.scm:150 3d213c0>))
>
> This comes from the fact that the ‘inputs’ field is not overridden,
> unlike in the case of ‘gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs’.
>
> To solve this, the solution is to add this one ‘inputs’ line:
>
> (define gnu-make-explicit-inputs
> (let ((p (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
> (%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain)
> #:guile %bootstrap-guile)))
> (package-with-bootstrap-guile
> (package (inherit p)
> (name "make-explicit-inputs")
> (inputs '()) ;<- HERE
> (arguments (package-arguments p))))))
>
> Perhaps you hit similar cases on ‘wip-bootstrap’? It’s easy to leave
> out too many inputs…
I tried this! The dependencies look OK, but the package won't build --
there's no tar, make etc.
That can be fixed by repeating the explicit inputs, like this:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define gnu-make-explicit-inputs
(let ((p (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
(%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain)
#:guile %bootstrap-guile)))
(package-with-bootstrap-guile
(package (inherit p)
(name "make-explicit-inputs")
(inputs (%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain))
(native-inputs '())
(arguments (package-arguments p))))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
...but that looks a bit strange: if we have to mention the inputs a
second time the advantage over using the `gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs'
package description becomes real small?
I also tried
(inputs (package-inputs p))
but that pulls in gcc-bootstrap-0 again; which lead me to believe
`package-with-explicit-inputs' has no observable effect?
Still a bit puzzled whether to revert the rewrites that removed
`package-with-explicit-inputs' and replace them by this second input
repetition...
janneke
