Hi Simon,
Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2023 at 20:21, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <m...@tobias.gr> wrote:
>
>> Could we rename it to something like
>> ‘package+replacements/inherit’? To me, that captures the spirit,
>> without being overly longer.
>
> Well, I gave a look at the code and have seen the replacement. But I
> had not thought about the package transformation and the like.
>
> From my point of view, the best would to add a paragraph with index
> entries under “Defining-Package-Variants” section [1].
>
> However, in the light of Maxim’s explanations, the example from the
> manual appears to me inconsistent:
>
> You can just as well define variants with a different set of
> dependencies than the original package. For example, the default
> @code{gdb} package depends on @code{guile}, but since that is an
> optional dependency, you can define a variant that removes that
> dependency like so:
>
> @lisp
> (use-modules (gnu packages gdb)) ;for 'gdb'
>
> (define gdb-sans-guile
> (package
> (inherit gdb)
> (inputs (modify-inputs (package-inputs gdb)
> (delete "guile")))))
> @end lisp
Do you mean inconsistent because based on what I wrote it should have
used "package/inherit gdb ..." instead of (package (inherit gdb) ...) ?
If so, I agree. It could be modified to use the former and an extra
explanation offered about why package/inherit is used here when it's to
be preferred to plain inheritance.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
