On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to
> statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all
> Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their* Haskell inputs.
> This is not easily acc
Hi Jakub,
I could see splitting the static output being useful but I would rather wait
until some evidence that the closure size would be too large. Also I’m not sure
propagation is necessary for dependents to find libraries or use paths from an
input.
Thoughts?
John
On Aug 7, 2020, at 8:04
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote:
> I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too
> large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find
> libraries or use paths from an input.
Ricardo already explained that this is indeed
Jakub Kądziołka writes:
> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote:
>> I would rather wait until some evidence that the closure size would be too
>> large. Also I’m not sure propagation is necessary for dependents to find
>> libraries or use paths from an input.
>
> Ricardo al
Hi Ricardo and Jakub,
Ah ok. Sorry I had forgotten the point of the thread. Sounds like a plan!
- John
On Aug 7, 2020, at 8:59 AM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Jakub Kądziołka writes:
>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 08:12:36AM -0700, John Soo wrote:
>> I would rather wait until some evidence that the
Jakub Kądziołka writes:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to
>> statically link packages we need to add all the “static” outputs of all
>> Haskell inputs *and* the “static” outputs of *their* Haskell
On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:27:21PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> Jakub Kądziołka writes:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 10:13:46AM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> >> Number 4 is by far the ugliest change of them all. In order to
> >> statically link packages we need to add all the “static” out
Hi John and Ricardo,
John Soo writes:
> I believe there was also some work being done to de-duplicate flags
> sent to gcc sent by ghc (this was the only thing keeping stack from
> building).
> I hope that can make it in, too!
I agree, and sorry to you John for the delay. I’m not using much
Has
Timothy Sample writes:
> Also, it looks like “wip-haskell-updates” is no longer being built by
> the CI infrastructure. Since the branch triggers a rebuild of all the
> Haskell packages, it should be built before merging, right?
Yes, I’ll rebase it on top of “master” and add the specification
Consider this package:
(use-modules
(guix packages)
(guix build-system trivial)
(gnu packages version-control))
(define foo
(package
(name "foo")
(version "0")
(source #f)
(build-system trivial-build-system)
(arguments
`(#:builder
(begin
(display %
Hi Jakub,
On Sat, Aug 08 2020, Jakub Kądziołka wrote:
Why? I would expect only libgit2 to be present, and not all of
its dependencies. ...
If you take a look at the definition for libgit2 in
gnu/packages/version-control.scm you'll see that this isn't all
the dependencies for libgit2, it's on
On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 10:26:08AM +1000, Carlo Zancanaro wrote:
> Hi Jakub,
>
> On Sat, Aug 08 2020, Jakub Kądziołka wrote:
> > Why? I would expect only libgit2 to be present, and not all of its
> > dependencies. ...
>
> If you take a look at the definition for libgit2 in
> gnu/packages/version-
12 matches
Mail list logo
