From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Superseded packages Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:44:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87r3844dn9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <874m5vvmi8.fsf@we.make.ritual.n0.is> <20160904184416.GB29947@jasmine> <87d1kirc4r.fsf@gnu.org> <87vay8r9r3.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <20160910172514.GA28562@jasmine> <87a8felfb9.fsf@gnu.org> <20160911151945.GB6400@jasmine> <87bmzujhn7.fsf@gnu.org> <20160920211833.GA3354@jasmine> <87y42if3hq.fsf@gnu.org> <20160925164208.GA7317@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41889) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpATi-0000Do-Fb for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:44:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpATe-0002h5-BU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 04:44:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160925164208.GA7317@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Sun, 25 Sep 2016 12:42:08 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari skribis: > On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 11:14:41AM +0900, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> > +(define-public attic >> > + (package (inherit borg) >> > + (name "attic") >> > + (properties `((superseded . ,borg))))) >>=20 >> I was thinking that we could keep the =E2=80=98attic=E2=80=99 recipe as-= is, only with >> this extra =E2=80=98properties=E2=80=99 field. >>=20 >> That way, =E2=80=9Cguix package -u=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cguix package -i= attic=E2=80=9D would install >> Borg, but people who insist could still run: >>=20 >> guix package -e '(@ (gnu packages backup) attic)' >>=20 >> Thoughts? > > That's a much better idea than what I had proposed. > > I found that I had to move the attic package definition below borg's, or > else the borg variable was unbound when building (gnu packages backup): [...] > So the attached patch moves attic after borg and supersedes it. Is it > expected that we have to shuffle the package definition around like > this? Yes, because =E2=80=98properties=E2=80=99 are evaluated eagerly. We could change the =E2=80=98superseded=E2=80=99 property to always be a pr= omise, as Efraim suggests; we=E2=80=99ll see later if that=E2=80=99s really necessary. The patch LGTM. Thank you! Ludo=E2=80=99.