Re: Build systems and implicit inputs

[zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com>]

Hi Pierre,

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:07, Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:56, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> >> > The solution to your problem in my opinion is simply to expose just the
> >> > right amount of options through #:arguments for all build systems.
> >> > Would that be satisfactory to you?
> >>
> >> I think the issue of tweaking the build system and its implicit inputs
> >> must be addressed separately.  We first need a good API to do that.
> >> When we have it, it’ll be nice and easy to drive it via package
> >> parameters.  :-)
> >
> > Now I have a better understanding about "package parameters", I agree
> > that it is 2 separate stories.
>
> Hmm... but does it have to?  It seems to me that we would gain a lot in
> keeping those parameters general enough and not separate the handling of
> the build system from the rest.  It would be simpler and more powerful.

I do not have a strong opinion. From my understanding, how to pass
arguments to the build system is a story and how to pass arguments to
packages is another one. Roughly speaking, they do not refer to the
same record, to the same functions that digest them, etc.. And I am
not a fan of adding global variables here and there.

Well, I am almost sure that treat them together will end with a big mess. :-)

Cheers,
simon