On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 7:03 AM Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > This change makes things like: > > guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts > > more useful and tractable. > > Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked > as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc: > > guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n > > Thoughts? > > Ludo'. > > Ludovic Courtès (2): > packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11. > packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages. > > doc/guix.texi | 21 ++++++++++++--------- > guix/packages.scm | 14 ++++++++------ > tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++- > 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > base-commit: 0a37921d851b94aef6900214098dc5bd62b46e26 > -- > 2.39.1
(resending to guix-devel since the bug has been archived) Ludo', This has broken, for example, building clang with a newer version of gcc using package-input-rewriting/spec. What do you think of adding a hidden? property to enable the old behavior? Alternatively, why are gcc, binutils, and libc used as build-time dependencies rather than gcc-toolchain? gcc-toolchain could be rewritten as a non-hidden package and use of the toolchain would seemingly better support profiles created with package->development-manifest. Greg
