bug#32749: package-with-explicit-inputs leaks-in additional inputs

[Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>]

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'
>> package description becomes real small?
>
> The key thing is that ‘package-with-explicit-inputs’ works recursively:
> it adds (it does *not* replace) inputs to the whole package graph.

Ah, cool!

> Consider this:
>
>   (define x
>     (let ((p (package-with-explicit-inputs gnu-make
>                                            (%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain)
>                                            …)))
>       …))
>
> Here ‘%bootstrap-inputs+toolchain’ is called from the top level, when
> ‘%current-system’ has its default value.  So if you’re on x86_64, you
> get the x86_64 inputs.

Doh'!  The let is at toplevel...yeah that makes sense.

> So it’s not a bug per se, but it’s definitely an annoyance.

I agree, indeed it's rather a problem of interaction between
--system/(%current-system).

> 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
>                                 %bootstrap-inputs+toolchain
>                                 …)
>
> Does it work for you?

Yes!  I'm reverting my `...leak' commits and create thunks as input of
package-with-explicit-inputs.  Thanks!

janneke