l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > 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.
Pushed as a7db8540a712b039aa518bfc4c58e7a6ce823858. Ludo’.
