Re: Naming of native-inputs/inputs/propagated-inputs

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Hi Ben,

> I know this is superficial, but I wonder if these names could be refined
> to better communicate their use. What about:
>
> | Currently         | Possible new name |
> |-------------------+-------------------|
> | native-inputs     | build-inputs      |
> | inputs            | runtime-inputs    |
> | propagated-inputs | profile-inputs    |

The difference between “native-inputs” and “inputs” is not about whether
they are needed at build time or runtime.  The difference only really
comes into play when cross-building.  “native-inputs” must be of the
host architecture, while “inputs” are for the target architecture.

It is correct that “native-inputs” often happen to be only used during
the build, but that doesn’t need to be the case.

Ultimately, runtime inputs are determined by whether they are referenced
in the output.  This is orthogonal to whether they are listed in the
“native-inputs”, “inputs”, or even “propagated-inputs” field.

I empathize with the desire to remove sources of confusion, but changing
the names would blur this distinction for a superficial orthogonal
property and give the wrong impression about how these inputs are used.

--
Ricardo