Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
[...]
>> I just realized that there’s already a fix for this, which is to pass
>> ‘package-with-explicit-inputs’ a procedure rather than the input list,
>> like this:
>>
>> (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
>>
Ludovic Courtès writes:
>> I tried this! The dependencies look OK, but the package won't build --
>> there's no tar, make etc.
>
> Ah, true!
>
>> ...but that looks a bit strange: if we have to mention the inputs a
>> second time the advantage over using the `gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs'
>> packag
Hello,
Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> The difference comes from the fact that ‘gnu-make-explicit-inputs’ has
>> Guile in its ‘inputs’:
>
> Ah, I missed that!
>
>> scheme@(gnu packages pawei)> (package-direct-inputs gnu-make-explicit-inputs)
>> $5 = (("libc" #> 3d216c0>
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> The difference comes from the fact that ‘gnu-make-explicit-inputs’ has
> Guile in its ‘inputs’:
Ah, I missed that!
> scheme@(gnu packages pawei)> (package-direct-inputs gnu-make-explicit-inputs)
> $5 = (("libc" # 3d216c0>) ("gcc" # 3d21600>) ("binutils" # gnu/packages/b
Hello!
Jan Nieuwenhuizen skribis:
> 11:56:03 janneke@dundal:~/src/guix-master
> $ ./pre-inst-env guix graph --type=bag -e '(begin (use-modules (guix
> packages)) (@@ (gnu packages pawei) gnu-make-no-implicit-inputs))' | wc -l
> 14
> 11:56:22 janneke@dundal:~/src/guix-master
> $ ./pre-inst-env
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> Should `package-with-explicit-inputs' behave like I think it does, i.e.,
> should both test packages list the same dependencies, or am I missing
> something?
Printing the packages in the Guix Repl gives this result
--8<---cut here---start--
Hi!
Rewriting the bootstrap on the wip-bootstrap branch I found additional
inputs in packages that use `package-with-explicit-inputs', such as
diffutils-boot0.
I would expect diffutils-boot0 to list just one extra input in addition
to gnu-make-boot0; namely the package gnu-make-boot0; however it
