Re: The package/inherit trap

[Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi Maxim,

On Tue, 07 Mar 2023 at 11:43, Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> wrote:

>> @lisp
>> (use-modules (gnu packages gdb))   ;for 'gdb'
>>
>> (define gdb-sans-guile
>>   (package
>>     (inherit gdb)
>>     (inputs (modify-inputs (package-inputs gdb)
>>               (delete "guile")))))
>> @end lisp
>
> Do you mean inconsistent because based on what I wrote it should have
> used "package/inherit gdb ..." instead of (package (inherit gdb) ...) ?

Based on my understanding about what you wrote.

> If so, I agree.  It could be modified to use the former and an extra
> explanation offered about why package/inherit is used here when it's to
> be preferred to plain inheritance.

Well, from my point of view, we have a trap because the documentation is
not clear. :-)

Well, I think it is not only by replacing in the example.  I think the
manual should provide 2 examples and makes a clear line when one needs
to pick ’inherit’ or when one needs to pick ’package/inherit’.

Somehow, we have a similar issue as we had before with “Snippet vs
Phases“.  It would help to have plain words for ’package/inherit’ use
cases; assuming all the other use cases are covered by ’inherit’. ;-)

Cheers,
simon