Hi Pierre, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:07, Pierre Neidhardt <m...@ambrevar.xyz> wrote: > zimoun <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:56, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> > The solution to your problem in my opinion is simply to expose just the > >> > right amount of options through #:arguments for all build systems. > >> > Would that be satisfactory to you? > >> > >> I think the issue of tweaking the build system and its implicit inputs > >> must be addressed separately. We first need a good API to do that. > >> When we have it, it’ll be nice and easy to drive it via package > >> parameters. :-) > > > > Now I have a better understanding about "package parameters", I agree > > that it is 2 separate stories. > > Hmm... but does it have to? It seems to me that we would gain a lot in > keeping those parameters general enough and not separate the handling of > the build system from the rest. It would be simpler and more powerful. I do not have a strong opinion. From my understanding, how to pass arguments to the build system is a story and how to pass arguments to packages is another one. Roughly speaking, they do not refer to the same record, to the same functions that digest them, etc.. And I am not a fan of adding global variables here and there. Well, I am almost sure that treat them together will end with a big mess. :-) Cheers, simon
