From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: dbus-glib: Propagate inputs dbus and glib. Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 09:34:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20150524073431.GA3725@debian> References: <20150523153249.19884.3207@vcs.savannah.gnu.org> <87zj4ulw8g.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57479) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YwQQh-00082A-Ry for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2015 03:34:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YwQQd-00040N-Fr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2015 03:34:39 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.130]:58064) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YwQQd-00040J-64 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 May 2015 03:34:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87zj4ulw8g.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:17:35PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > The only change you actually made to messaging.scm in this commit was to > add your copyright notice. That was a mistake, I intended to make the change announced in the commit message. Probably a consequence of juggling with too many files, since I also built all the modified packages (with the exception of icecat) to make sure everything still works. > However, I have a larger question about this commit: Should 'dbus' and > 'glib' be removed from the inputs of every package that has 'dbus-glib' > as an input? My answer would be "not necessarily". IMO, the only time > we should remove input A from a package is when it doesn't use A > directly. I have no definite answer to this. Not removing them would definitely mean less work. Even more so since it is not easy to determine the transitive closure of propagation: If A is propagated by B and B is propagated by C, then everything including C does not need to include A. In practice, for a new package, I am usually building with incrementally more inputs, following the complaints by the configure phase. So if it first complains about dbus-glib, I would add it, and not see any complaints about dbus and glib, which would not be included. If it first complains about glib, then dbus, then dbus-glib, I would add all three and maybe not even see that one of them is enough. Contrarily to you, I wondered whether we should not even build a linter to verify if propagated inputs could not be dropped as explicit inputs... But I think it would make for a lot of work with little effect anyway. So maybe we should not do anything special and just let randomness take its course in this matter? Andreas