bug#26170: Bug #26170 Hunting: doc: Explanation of propagated-inputs unclear

["Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>]

Hi,

"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:

> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <pelzflorian@pelzflorian.de> skribis:
>> >  Another example where @code{propagated-inputs} is useful is for languages
>> >  that lack a facility to record the run-time search path akin to the
>> >  @code{RUNPATH} of ELF files; this includes Guile, Python, Perl, and
>> > -more.  To ensure that libraries written in those languages can find
>> > -library code they depend on at run time, run-time dependencies must be
>> > -listed in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}.
>> > +more.  When packaging libraries written in those languages, ensure they can find
>> > +library code they depend on at run time by listing run-time dependencies
>> > +in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}.
>> 
>> I’m not convinced about this hunk; it uses imperative tense towards the
>> reader to state the same thing no?
>
> The difference is “When packaging libraries”.  I suppose the intention
> is that propagated-inputs be declared as part of library packages and
> not as part of the application using those libraries.  I am unsure if
> I understand correctly if “When packaging libraries” is not explicitly
> stated.

Oh I see, that makes sense to me.  Go ahead!  :-)

Thanks,
Ludo’.