From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: Texlive and native-inputs Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 18:13:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20141029171309.GA30858@jocasta.intra> References: <20141029165958.GA4944@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37419) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjWoF-0002Xy-LM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:13:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjWoB-0008E2-6A for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:13:23 -0400 Received: from de.cellform.com ([88.217.224.109]:44477 helo=jocasta.intra) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XjWoA-0008DU-PN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:13:19 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141029165958.GA4944@debian.eduroam.u-bordeaux.fr> 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:00:02PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: Currently, texlive has a certain number of native inputs: (native-inputs `(("perl" ,perl) ("pkg-config" ,pkg-config) ("python" ,python-2) ; incompatible with Python 3 (print syntax) ("tcsh" ,tcsh))) But I think these are not needed during build time, but to patch-sheba= ng scripts that are installed into the bin directory. So should they not = be normal inputs? =20 If they were "normal" inputs and you were cross compiling, then the package= s which are made available, would be those for the target system, not the native on= e. Hence they could not run, and the build would break. This is part of commit c4c4cc05979f2a2d0212963c5fe1b940d63a0958 which = was a mass-move from inputs to native-inputs. I wonder if these need to be verified one by one by hand? How does one know without going through e= very line of the build logs whether an interpreter is used during the build or in installed scripts?=20 You are probably right - to be sure they should be manually checked. An=20 alternative would be to attempt cross building all the affected packages. = That=20 said, I cannot envisage a scenario where a non-native pkg-config would be = =20 needed. In the case of perl, python, etc I recall that previous discussion= s=20 concluded that if they are needed in installed scripts, then it should be u= p to the=20 user to install them. Or what happens if both is the case? In that case, the package would need to be declared as both an input and a = native-input. =20 Did I misunderstand anything? =46rom your first paragraph, I think you did. =20 =20 J' --=20 PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3=20 fingerprint =3D 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlRRICUACgkQimdxnC3oJ7McdwCfcciUXQ8tEXEtGtIYTlmaYmAa 8rYAn1e1+VEQUX+8o2lq5y5FyR6Wku3o =ej1D -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --/9DWx/yDrRhgMJTb--