Hi! Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> skribis:
> I suppose adding (package-source rust-cargo) to inputs to preserve the > old meaning would not make much sense? No because you need transitivity (that is, you need sources of the dependencies, too). > If so, what about having a source output and using (list `(,rust-cargo > "source") ...)? AFAICS it wouldn’t help solve the problems I mentioned. >> Last, the change to ‘inputs’ would introduce a few cycles at the >> <package> level. Those cycles vanish when we lower to bags and >> derivations. However, because of these cycles, things like ‘guix >> refresh -l’ may not work; there might be other unexpected and >> undesired side effects. > What about making the change incrementally, so that outer layers can > start adopting the new style while inner layers are being > rebootstrapped. I also think it'd make sense to see how we could > detect cycles through static analysis. Yeah, we could change things incrementally if that helps. However, given that ‘guix style’ can automate all the changes, I think we could just as well change everything at once. The good thing is that it allows us that the strategy we choose actually works at scale, in every case. >> Some of these cycles could in theory be removed. For instance, >> ‘rust-cfg-if’ has an optional dependency on ‘rust-compiler-builtins’, >> which leads to a cycle, but Cargo won’t let us actually remove that >> dependency, even though it’s optional. > Could we rewrite the toml file to tell Cargo it has no power over us? > Could we define bootstrap mockups? Maybe, I don’t know! Thanks, Ludo’.
