Hi Greg, (It’s been two months but I completely missed this message.)
Greg Hogan <c...@greghogan.com> skribis: > 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. [...] > This has broken, for example, building clang with a newer version of > gcc using package-input-rewriting/spec. As in: guix build clang --with-c-toolchain=clang=gcc-toolchain@12 ? Or some other command? > What do you think of adding a hidden? property to enable the old > behavior? Maybe, but I’m not sure I fully understand the problem. > 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. We could replace gcc, binutils, etc. with just ‘gcc-toolchain’; this will need testing of course, but I cannot think of any issue it would cause. (That’s a ‘core-updates’ change though.) Thanks, Ludo’.
