From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id +A6fCSFfImCZCQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:08:33 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id uL1rBSFfImD3RAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:08:33 +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 716689403AA for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:50202 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9Pwd-00043k-AD for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 05:08:31 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51482) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9Pv0-0002KR-A4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 05:06:50 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:12013) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l9Put-00022m-8m for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 05:06:49 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-165-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.165.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DZdpN5hBvz3wY2; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:06:36 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1612865197; bh=kQv+3yimdeKTNLCxpW643GBv3KQMQOwD/WgfMsd6EZ8=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=DD3XrQ8c3egnaWtyjAPTYmieHPJEYeVTSWKo5rQGkrVZuQAEqaO03pIr6Jb3jcfty Gj3XSVme1mPlzcvBOrr5giQ6i8RQT6Hlh58jFaIPvR1BaFURRxwurFYi8Jg9VWQQGZ OG5XNWDIOsjCcLJLCPwLlRQpb4IhqdAAPv1YbcQw= Message-ID: <726a227171fefad2ccd1240221d22c87da8657c5.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: [DOUBT]: native-search-paths VS search-paths From: Leo Prikler To: Raghav Gururajan Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 11:06:35 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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@gnu.org Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.06 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=DD3XrQ8c; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; 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-Migadu-Queue-Id: 716689403AA X-Spam-Score: -3.06 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: tQo2BefUhmNk Am Dienstag, den 09.02.2021, 04:56 -0500 schrieb Raghav Gururajan: > Hi Leo! > > > Both search-paths and native-search-paths are expanded in a build > > environment to form an environment variable. search-paths works on > > inputs whereas native-search-paths works on native-inputs. In > > addition, native-search-paths also end up in your > > $GUIX_PROFILE/etc/profile. > > So it is like how "PATH" is established inside build environment? > > Also, are they useful only to the package itself or to other > packages > that depend on it as well? Depends on the package. If it gets propagated into the build environment, the variable is set as well. At other times, it might be set through the wrap phase for runtime purposes. Regards, Leo