Taylan Ulrich Kammer <taylanbayi...@gmail.com> skribis: > From 0f001497234df55e3c131c10f84ddf184261ee09 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?UTF-8?q?Taylan=20Ulrich=20Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer?= > <taylanbayi...@gmail.com> > Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 22:37:04 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] doc: Document native-inputs and propagated-inputs. > > * doc/guix.texi (Defining Packages): Add `native-inputs' and > `propagated-inputs' fields to the example package recipe, and explain them.
[...] > --- a/doc/guix.texi > +++ b/doc/guix.texi > @@ -1716,6 +1716,8 @@ package looks like this: > (build-system gnu-build-system) > (arguments `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-silent-rules"))) > (inputs `(("gawk" ,gawk))) > + (native-inputs `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config))) > + (propagated-inputs `(("libfoo" ,libfoo))) I would not add it here since it’s incorrect code. > +@item > +The @code{native inputs} field specifies inputs for which it should be > +ensured that the version present at build-time is for the architecture > +on which the build is running. This is necessary for cross-compilation > +when programs from the input will be executed at build-time. This field > +will frequently have build tools such as autotools components, libtool, > +pkg-config, or gettext. s/autotools components/Autoconf/ and capitalize “Libtool” and “Gettext.” > +@item > +The @code{propagated inputs} field specifies inputs whose installation > +should be forced alongside the installation of the package. For > +example, some shared libraries expect another shared library, on which > +they depend, to be linked alongside them. In that case said dependency > +should be installed alongside the library, so that when a program wants > +to use the library it can correctly link against both the library and > +its dependency. What about taking the example that is in “Invoking guix package”, which explicitly mentions C header file dependencies? More importantly, I think we should have a “package Reference” section (akin to the existing “operating-system Reference” section) right after “Defining Packages.” That way, we could keep “Defining Packages” simple and concise, and simply cross-ref to the reference section for details. That’s more work, but that’d be real cool. WDYT? :-) Thanks! Ludo’.