Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?

[Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1263 bytes --]

All inputs of a package are build-time, whether normal, native or propagated. The result may reference some of them, and these references are the run-time dependencies.

native-inputs are usually buill-time only, because they are usually programs that are run during the build (hence the need for them to be native in a cross-build).

propagated-inputs breaks this nice model by making them run-time dependencies despite the abscence of a reference.

I think focusing on the name is distracting, but maybe "dependent-inputs", since this type of input would only affect the inputs of its dependents?

Le 5 septembre 2021 06:06:02 GMT-04:00, Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> a écrit :
>> > What do you think of "build-propagated-inputs"?
>>
>> We don't call things build-inputs here in Guix land, that's a no-no :P
>
>potentially worthless two cents from a newcomer's perspective:
>'build-time' and 'run-time' are well established concepts in the wider
>community.
>
>if i were reading 'linked-inputs' in a package definition, i wouldn't
>associate it to being the set of build-time dependencies.
>
>the best name, from my admittedly uninformed perspective, would be
>`build-time-inputs`.
>
>- attila
>PGP: 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1812 bytes --]