Hi Ludovic, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi Maxim, > > Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> skribis: > >> I’m really not sure what the impact of >> 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 is, nor whether it was the only >> solution to the problem. >> >> One thing that probably happens is that (default-guile) is now never >> used for <computed-file>, contrary to what was happening before. The >> spirit is that (default-guile) would be used as the default for all the >> declarative file-like objects; gexp compilers refer to (default-guile), >> not (%guile-for-build). >> >> Importantly, (%guile-for-build) is a derivation, possibly built for >> another system, whereas (default-guile) is a package, which allows >> ‘lower-object’ to return the derivation for the right system type. > > Commit 68775338a510f84e63657ab09242d79e726fa457 turned out to have > unintended side effects: > > https://issues.guix.gnu.org/61841 Ugh. > I fixed it with: > > a516a0ba93 gexp: computed-file: Do not honor %guile-for-build. > fee1d08f0d pack: Make sure tests can run without a world rebuild. > > Please take a look. Thank you. I still think it'd be nicer if computed-file had a means to honor %guile-for-build rather than having to accommodate it specially as you did in fee1d08f0d, so that it'd be symmetrical to gexp->derivation in that regard. Why can't they? > We should think about how to improve our processes to avoid such issues > in the future. I did raise concerns about this very patch late at night > during FOSDEM, 24h after submission, and reaffirmed my viewpoint days > later. I understand that delaying a nice patch series like this one is > unpleasant, but I think those concerns should have been taken into > account. You are right, I should have delayed this submission passed its 2 weeks, to let some extra time to look at alternatives w.r.t. the %guile-for-build patch. Apologies for being too eager! -- Thanks, Maxim
