From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id gPf1FNTgW1/jRAAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:40:52 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id QGpVD9TgW186JgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:40:52 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A6C9404C3 for ; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 20:40:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:56014 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGpqj-00050K-UA for larch@yhetil.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:40:49 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:60628) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGpqY-0004zg-Q7 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:40:38 -0400 Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([2a0c:e300::1]:55892) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kGpqX-0001rS-18 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 16:40:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC5D110FD; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:40:31 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at aquilenet.fr Received: from hera.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hera.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id B9szNjJGHWDN; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:40:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from jurong (unknown [IPv6:2001:910:103f::17d]) by hera.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 030C1110B5; Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:40:29 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2020 22:40:07 +0200 From: Andreas Enge To: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: What should "guix build --source" produce? (was Re: Dependency cycle issues when using a Gexp-based snippet) Message-ID: <20200911204007.GA7809@jurong> References: <87h7ssx07p.fsf@gmail.com> <87lfhkj4hr.fsf@netris.org> <20200908072249.GA1469@jurong> <87lfhg6umj.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87lfhg6umj.fsf@gmail.com> Received-SPF: neutral client-ip=2a0c:e300::1; envelope-from=andreas@enge.fr; helo=hera.aquilenet.fr X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: No matching host in p0f cache. That's all we know. X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: guix-devel Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Scanner: scn0 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -0.51 X-TUID: F9BJol6HZrn/ Hello Maxim, On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 02:22:44PM -0400, Maxim Cournoyer wrote: > +@cindex snippets, when to use > +The boundary between using an origin snippet versus a build phase to > +modify the sources of a package can be elusive. Origin snippets are > +typically used to remove unnecessary files such as bundled libraries, > +nonfree sources, or to apply simple substitutions. The source derived > +from an origin should produce a source that can be used to build the > +package on any system that the upstream package supports (i.e., act as > +the corresponding source). In particular, origin patches or snippets > +must not embed store items in the sources; such patching should rather > +be done using build phases. that sounds good to me! However, I would not use the word "patch" in "origin patches or snippets must not embed store items", since patches are yet something else as defined in the "patches" field; almost by definition, they cannot embed store items. So in the end: "In particular, origin snippets must not embed store items in the sources; such modifications should rather be done using build phases." Thanks, Andreas