Hi Chris, Chris Marusich <cmmarus...@gmail.com> skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> (define-public guix guix-devel) >> >> +(define-public guix-for-environment >> + ;; We provide this pseudo-package just to allow people to run: >> + ;; guix environment guix-devel >> + ;; to reliably get the development environment for Guix (using 'guix' for >> + ;; this purpose does not work when 'guix' points to the built-from-tarball >> + ;; package rather than to the built-from-checkout package.) >> + (package >> + (inherit guix-devel) >> + (name "guix-devel") >> + (source #f) ;not meant to be built >> + (supported-systems '()))) >> + >> (define (source-file? file stat) >> "Return true if FILE is likely a source file, false if it is a typical >> generated file." >> >> >> ? >> >> If that’s fine with you, could you incorporate it in your patch? > > Sounds good to me. I've attached the updated patch to this email and > mentioned you as co-author. The new package fails to build with a > cryptic error, but since it isn't meant to be built, that seems OK. > > What is the purpose of temporarily changing the "guix" variable to refer > to the release package (as in commit 4420940f)? Because it usually > refers to the development version, wouldn't it be better to make the > "guix" variable ALWAYS refer to the development version? It isn't clear > to me why we need to temporarily change this variable to refer to the > release version. Somehow this question turned out to be difficult to answer to me, which contributed to the delay. ;-) I think you’re right: in a way, this is a bit silly. This is a purist’s approach (when we have the tarball, no need to depend on Autoconf et al.), but it would work just fine if we simply added the ‘native-inputs’ currently on ‘guix-devel’ to ‘guix-0.11.0’ itself. If there are no objections, I’ll just do that. Thanks, and sorry for taking so long for such a simple answer! Ludo’.
