Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcr...@uq.edu.au> skribis: > On 03/01/16 06:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcr...@uq.edu.au> skribis: >> >>> On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcr...@uq.edu.au> skribis:
[...] >>>>> + `(#:phases >>>>> + (modify-phases %standard-phases >>>>> + (replace 'check >>>>> + (lambda _ >>>>> + (zero? (system* "ruby" "-Ilib" "-r" "ansi"))))))) >>>> The only case where this would make a difference is for leaf packages, >>>> no? In all the other cases, building dependent packages will ensure >>>> that the package at hand works as expected. >>> Sure, but even in the case where they aren't leaf packages at least >>> the build error gets thrown when building the package at >>> fault. There's also the important difference that it makes the >>> packager feel less bad about the disappointing lack of tests or the >>> necessity of disabling them because of circular dependencies. >> Right. The only downside I can think of is if packagers have to copy >> the above 4 lines in each and every package. Can you think of a way >> that would avoid that? > I have only been adding these in cases where testing is impossible, > but we could make it a wider policy. > > We could bake it into the build system, by adding an optional argument > #:import so that you could do > > (build-system ruby-build-system) > (arguments > `(#:import "ansi" > #:tests? #f)) ; tests require circular dependencies The problem is that the “-Ilib” in the command above cannot be guessed, can it? > Probably in that case makes sense to have a new phase 'check-import so > that more complex cases can be handled, rather than replacing > 'check. Agreed. > There's no way to run this phase with the native-inputs disappeared is > there so it more closely mirrors a user's experience? Not easily. The phase would have to recompute the RUBYPATH (or whatever it’s called.) > We could even default this to the expected name of the library guessed > from the name of the package when #:import is not given. However, this > would unfortunately break packages that have been written outside of > Guix, so I imagine you don't feel this is a good idea. We could choose the package name as a default value, but often that’s not going to work, notably because of the “ruby-” prefix. WDYT? Ludo’.
