(hidden) wrapper+dependencies inconsistency=manifest fails?

(hidden) wrapper+dependencies inconsistency=manifest fails?

[zimoun]

Dear,

An example is better than too much words. :-)

This command lists the dependencies of the "guix" package.

 guix package --show=guix | recsel -p dependencies

Then this command fails:
   guix package --show=autoconf-wrapper

It is expected because the "wrapper" is not a "real" package and it is
not exposed. Only the package "autoconf" is.


Therefore, you cannot chain:

  guix package -i `guix package --show=guix | recsel -P dependencies`

guix package: error: autoconf-wrapper: package not found for version 2.69


Moreover, the name in "native-inputs" is not consistent with the
declared name. I mean:
  guix repl
> ,use(guix)
> ,use(gnu packages package-management)
> (package-native-inputs guix)
> (map car (package-native-inputs guix))
> (map package-name (map cadr (package-native-inputs guix)))


Last, "specifications->manifest" is nice because one does not have to
know where each dependencies is defined. To be concrete, it is easy:
    guix package --show=guix | recesel -p location
gives the name of the file which is the name of the module. So a
manifest is quickly written:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(use-modules (guix)
             (gnu packages package-management))

(specifications->manifest
 `(,@(map package-full-name
          (map cadr (package-native-inputs guix)))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Then,
  guix package -p guix-dev -m the-manifest.scm
But this also fails:
 error: autoconf-wrapper: package not found for version 2.69
which is expected. I guess.

Something in this flavour should be added:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define* (specifications-native-inputs package  #:optional (delimiter "@"))
  (define (package-name+delimiter package)
    (let ((name (car package))
          (version (package-version (cadr package))))
      (string-append name delimiter version)))
  (map package-name+delimiter
       (package-native-inputs package)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


Then, the manifest becomes straightforward:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(use-modules (guix)
             (gnu packages package-management))

(specifications->manifest
 `(,@(specifications-native-inputs guix)))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---


What do you think?
Does it make sense?


All the best,
simon

Re: (hidden) wrapper+dependencies inconsistency=manifest fails?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> This command lists the dependencies of the "guix" package.
>
>  guix package --show=guix | recsel -p dependencies
>
> Then this command fails:
>    guix package --show=autoconf-wrapper
>
> It is expected because the "wrapper" is not a "real" package and it is
> not exposed. Only the package "autoconf" is.
>
>
> Therefore, you cannot chain:
>
>   guix package -i `guix package --show=guix | recsel -P dependencies`
>
> guix package: error: autoconf-wrapper: package not found for version 2.69

Yes, but it’s a fact of life IMO.  :-)

> Moreover, the name in "native-inputs" is not consistent with the
> declared name. I mean:
>   guix repl
>> ,use(guix)
>> ,use(gnu packages package-management)
>> (package-native-inputs guix)
>> (map car (package-native-inputs guix))

This gives you the list of labels for each input.  The labels do _not_
have to match package names; they can be anything, there can even be
duplicates, etc.  You should not rely on them at all to identify
packages.

Eventually, once build systems use gexp, I hope we can even get rid of
these labels.  Guix 2.0.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Ludo’.

Re: (hidden) wrapper+dependencies inconsistency=manifest fails?

[zimoun]

Hi Ludo,

Thank you for explaining.

On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 10:01, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> > Therefore, you cannot chain:
> >
> >   guix package -i `guix package --show=guix | recsel -P dependencies`
> >
> > guix package: error: autoconf-wrapper: package not found for version 2.69
>
> Yes, but it’s a fact of life IMO.  :-)

It is against the Unix Philosophy: "Expect the output of every program
to become the input to another". ;-)
Isn't it?

Well, I take that as an annoying fact of life. :-)


> > Moreover, the name in "native-inputs" is not consistent with the
> > declared name. I mean:
> >   guix repl
> >> ,use(guix)
> >> ,use(gnu packages package-management)
> >> (package-native-inputs guix)
> >> (map car (package-native-inputs guix))
>
> This gives you the list of labels for each input.  The labels do _not_
> have to match package names; they can be anything, there can even be
> duplicates, etc.  You should not rely on them at all to identify
> packages.

I understand.
But how to lazily create a manifest without diving in too much details?

Well, how can I create a profile to build guix?


> Eventually, once build systems use gexp, I hope we can even get rid of
> these labels.  Guix 2.0.

If they are useless. :-)


> Does that make sense?

Thank you for the explanations.


All the best,
simon