From: Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>
To: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
Cc: 60847@debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: [bug#60847] [PATCH] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system.
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2023 19:26:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87fsagqr67.fsf@cbaines.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87a60owfi8.fsf@gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4284 bytes --]
Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> writes:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Ludo!
>>>
>>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>>
>>>>> +++ b/guix/packages.scm
>>>>> @@ -1864,28 +1864,30 @@ (define* (bag->derivation bag #:optional context)
>>>>
>>>> […]
>>>>
>>>>> + (let ((builder-name (procedure-name (bag-build bag))))
>>>>> + (if (or (bag-target bag)
>>>>> + (eq? 'pyproject-build builder-name))
>>>>> + (bag->cross-derivation bag)
>>>>
>>>> This one part is a showstopper to me, for two reasons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. We cannot rely on ‘procedure-name’ (it’s a debugging aid and it’s
>>>> not guaranteed to return something useful).
>>>>
>>>> 2. Special-casing build systems here is not okay: the bag and build
>>>> system abstractions exist to maintain separation of concerns.
>>>>
>>>> I understand there’s an actual bug to fix and the desire to fix a more
>>>> common issue, but I think this one approach is not the way forward.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that makes sense!
>>>
>>> I agree this is not "pretty", but it would be a "temporary" kludge until
>>> all the build systems can be migrated (and the package adjusted for) the
>>> "new" way, which is: native-inputs and inputs always co-exist, whether
>>> the build is a native one or a cross one.
>>>
>>> In light of this, it seems OK to test the water with a not so
>>> significant build system (only a handful of package relies on
>>> pyproject-build-system thus far). When all the build systems will have
>>> been migrated to the new way (a too big undertaking to be done in one
>>> shot), this kludge can be removed.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, could you offer a concrete suggestion as the way forward? I
>>> appreciate the "that's not the way", but stopping short of suggesting a
>>> better alternative leaves me wanting more :-).
>>
>> I think it would be clearer to see other potential ways forward if the
>> end goal was more clearly articulated.
>>
>> Guessing at that here from the changes proposed to guix/packages.scm,
>> once all build systems are adjusted, cross derivations will be produced
>> for all bags, regardless of whether there's a target.
>>
>> That doesn't make much sense to me. One explaination is that the current
>> naming is confusing when thinking about this goal, so maybe
>> bag->cross-derivation happens to do what you want it to do in all
>> circumstances, even when target is #f?
>
> Thanks for tipping in. The end goal is to avoid loosing the information
> of which inputs are native (build inputs) vs regular in the bag, and yes
> bag->cross-derivation allows that. It appears to me the distinction in
> the bag representations (native vs cross) was originally perceived
> useful as some kind of optimization (there's less variables to worry
> about, and we can squash the inputs/search-paths together, since they're
> all native anyway), but this information (currently discarded) ends up
> being very useful even on the build side (to wrap only the target
> inputs, say, and not all the native/build inputs).
>
> So yes, the change long term would be to integrate the
> bag->cross-derivation logic into bag->derivation, at which point it
> would be unified for any type of build (the bag representation would be
> shared between native and cross builds).
Thanks for the explanation, so maybe an alternative to trying to get
bag->derivation to function differently for different build systems
would be to push combining the inputs down in to each build system.
Take the gnu-build-system as an example, gnu-build in (guix build-system
gnu) would be changed to take multiple lists of inputs, rather than a
single list. It can then combine the lists of inputs as is done in
bag->derivation, to avoid affecting any packages.
While this does require changing all the build systems, I think it's a
bit more forward thinking compared to trying to add a kludge in to
bag->derivation, since hopefully the change there can be the longer term
one.
Does that make sense?
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 987 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-07 19:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-16 4:04 [bug#60847] [PATCH 0/5] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system Maxim Cournoyer
2023-01-16 5:01 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH 0/1] " Maxim Cournoyer
2023-01-16 5:01 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH 1/1] build: Enable cross-compilation for pyproject-build-system Maxim Cournoyer
2023-01-23 13:32 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH v2 0/1] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system Maxim Cournoyer
2023-01-23 13:32 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH v2 1/1] build: Enable cross-compilation for pyproject-build-system Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-06 17:04 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH] Enable cross-compilation for the pyproject-build-system Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-07 14:08 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-07 15:05 ` Christopher Baines
2023-03-07 19:03 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-07 19:26 ` Christopher Baines [this message]
2023-03-10 14:13 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-10 8:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 14:21 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-10 17:00 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-12 4:05 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-12 4:05 ` Maxim Cournoyer
2023-03-06 22:56 ` jgart via Guix-patches via
2023-03-07 0:25 ` jgart via Guix-patches via
2023-01-24 2:05 ` [bug#60847] [PATCH v2 1/1] build: Enable cross-compilation for pyproject-build-system jgart via Guix-patches via
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://guix.gnu.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87fsagqr67.fsf@cbaines.net \
--to=mail@cbaines.net \
--cc=60847@debbugs.gnu.org \
--cc=maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).