Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:14:41AM +0900, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis: >> > +(define-public attic >> > + (package (inherit borg) >> > + (name "attic") >> > + (properties `((superseded . ,borg))))) >> >> I was thinking that we could keep the ‘attic’ recipe as-is, only with >> this extra ‘properties’ field. >> >> That way, “guix package -u” and “guix package -i attic” would install >> Borg, but people who insist could still run: >> >> guix package -e '(@ (gnu packages backup) attic)' >> >> Thoughts? > > That's a much better idea than what I had proposed. > > I found that I had to move the attic package definition below borg's, or > else the borg variable was unbound when building (gnu packages backup):
[...] > So the attached patch moves attic after borg and supersedes it. Is it > expected that we have to shuffle the package definition around like > this? Yes, because ‘properties’ are evaluated eagerly. We could change the ‘superseded’ property to always be a promise, as Efraim suggests; we’ll see later if that’s really necessary. The patch LGTM. Thank you! Ludo’.
