bug#65774: python updater clears inputs, leaves propagated-inputs empty

["Sergio Pastor Pérez" <sergio.pastorperez@outlook.es>]

Hi,

I'm afraid you lost me here. Why is the `inputs' field empty? I don't
understand what you meand with the checking of 'python-'.

Keep in mind that I have very little experince with python packaging so
I'm may not understand you due to my lack of background.


Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I've had the Python updater produce this when attempting to update
> fontmake:
>
> gnu/packages/fontutils.scm:780:2: warning: fontmake: 'propagated-inputs'
> field not found; leaving it unchanged
>
> gnu/packages/fontutils.scm:780:2: warning: fontmake: expected
> 'propagated-inputs' value: (python-attrs python-fontmath
> python-fonttools python-glyphslib python-ufo2ft python-ufolib2)
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> modified   gnu/packages/fontutils.scm
> @@ -779,16 +779,16 @@ (define-public psautohint-font-data
>  (define-public fontmake
>    (package
>      (name "fontmake")
> -    (version "3.4.0")
> +    (version "3.7.1")
>      (source (origin
>                (method url-fetch)
>                (uri (pypi-uri "fontmake" version ".zip"))
>                (sha256
>                 (base32
> -                "0fc5c9csjpy1aa4c03p7nvjgls5wjplhmmf42n0cmvrlh6cm7wl3"))))
> +                "0ib7fvwgwazm7qfj4a3rkqkb40xfbj40rnvsmkvl2isg2ky3vg9m"))))
>      (build-system python-build-system)
> -    (inputs (list python-fontmath python-glyphslib))
> -    (native-inputs (list unzip python-setuptools-scm))
> +    (inputs (list))
> +    (native-inputs (list zip))
>      (home-page "https://github.com/googlefonts/fontmake")
>      (synopsis
>       "Compile fonts from sources (UFO, Glyphs) to binary (OpenType, TrueType)")
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> The choice of using inputs here was conscious, as it is a command, not a
> library.  Perhaps it could check if the name starts with 'python-' or
> not?  It's a bit 'magic', but it would help.