Am Samstag, den 04.09.2021, 17:50 -0700 schrieb Sarah Morgensen: > Hi Liliana, > > (Efraim, I've Cc'd you since you're working on re-doing Rust inputs.) > > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prik...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Does anyone have an idea how we should handle propagations for the > > sake of pkg-config? Perhaps we could add "linked-inputs", which > > are added when building packages and environments when not using -- > > ad-hoc, but not when union-building profiles. WDYT? > > I know nothing about pkg-config, but such an input would help > simplify things for Go (and I think for Rust) since many inputs need > to be propagated only at build-time. To be fair, I wasn't not thinking about Go and Rust, which at least on the surface appear to have similar propagation semantics. I do however not know whether all currently propagated inputs from those two could be reclassified as linked-inputs. FWIW I don't think (most) Emacs, Python or Guile packages work that way, but I do know of at least one that would profit from having linked-inputs.
> What do you think of "build-propagated-inputs"? We don't call things build-inputs here in Guix land, that's a no-no :P > (A quick search of the ML turned up one previous discussion [0]; does > anyone know of others?) > > [0] > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg00362.html W.r.t. native-inputs, I think native-inputs should propagate propagated-inputs, but not linked-inputs. Makes sense, doesn't it?
