* [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
@ 2023-03-08 12:01 Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-03-08 12:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 62047
Cc: Ludovic Courtès, Christopher Baines, Josselin Poiret,
Ludovic Courtès, Mathieu Othacehe, Ricardo Wurmus,
Simon Tournier, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
Hello,
This change makes things like:
guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts
more useful and tractable.
Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:
guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n
Thoughts?
Ludo'.
Ludovic Courtès (2):
packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages.
doc/guix.texi | 21 ++++++++++++---------
guix/packages.scm | 14 ++++++++------
tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
base-commit: 0a37921d851b94aef6900214098dc5bd62b46e26
--
2.39.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
2023-03-08 12:01 [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-03-08 12:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 2/2] packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 11:49 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Simon Tournier
2023-03-09 20:15 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via
2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-03-08 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 62047; +Cc: Ludovic Courtès
* guix/packages.scm (package-input-rewriting/spec): Use SRFI-71 'let'.
---
guix/packages.scm | 7 +++----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/guix/packages.scm b/guix/packages.scm
index 041a872f9d..cd61878bcc 100644
--- a/guix/packages.scm
+++ b/guix/packages.scm
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
-;;; Copyright © 2012-2022 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2012-2023 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
;;; Copyright © 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
;;; Copyright © 2015 Eric Bavier <bavier@member.fsf.org>
;;; Copyright © 2016 Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>
@@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ (define-module (guix packages)
#:use-module (ice-9 regex)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-9 gnu)
- #:use-module (srfi srfi-11)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-34)
#:use-module (srfi srfi-35)
+ #:use-module (srfi srfi-71)
#:use-module (rnrs bytevectors)
#:use-module (web uri)
#:autoload (texinfo) (texi-fragment->stexi)
@@ -1534,8 +1534,7 @@ (define table
(fold (lambda (replacement table)
(match replacement
((spec . proc)
- (let-values (((name version)
- (package-name->name+version spec)))
+ (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))
(vhash-cons name (list version proc) table)))))
vlist-null
replacements))
--
2.39.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 2/2] packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages.
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-03-08 12:03 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 11:49 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Simon Tournier
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-03-08 12:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 62047; +Cc: Ludovic Courtès
The primary motivation is to support things like:
guix build guix --with-input=guile=guile-next
without triggering a rebuild of (@@ (gnu packages commencement)
guile-final) and similar things.
It is also consistent with package name resolution on the command line:
a package that cannot be named cannot be replaced.
* guix/packages.scm (package-input-rewriting/spec)[rewrite]: When P is
hidden, return it as-is.
* tests/packages.scm ("package-input-rewriting/spec, hidden package"):
New test.
* doc/guix.texi (Defining Package Variants): Update.
(Package Transformation Options): Update '--with-input' example.
---
doc/guix.texi | 21 ++++++++++++---------
guix/packages.scm | 7 +++++--
tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index 6671ba9305..6803512435 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -8331,10 +8331,13 @@ be replaced by name rather than by identity.
@deffn {Scheme Procedure} package-input-rewriting/spec @var{replacements} [#:deep? #t]
Return a procedure that, given a package, applies the given
@var{replacements} to all the package graph, including implicit inputs
-unless @var{deep?} is false. @var{replacements} is a list of
-spec/procedures pair; each spec is a package specification such as
-@code{"gcc"} or @code{"guile@@2"}, and each procedure takes a matching
-package and returns a replacement for that package.
+unless @var{deep?} is false.
+
+@var{replacements} is a list of spec/procedures pair; each spec is a
+package specification such as @code{"gcc"} or @code{"guile@@2"}, and
+each procedure takes a matching package and returns a replacement for
+that package. Matching packages that have the @code{hidden?} property
+set are not replaced.
@end deffn
The example above could be rewritten this way:
@@ -12664,18 +12667,18 @@ or @code{guile@@1.8}.
For instance, the following command builds Guix, but replaces its
dependency on the current stable version of Guile with a dependency on
-the legacy version of Guile, @code{guile@@2.0}:
+the legacy version of Guile, @code{guile@@2.2}:
@example
-guix build --with-input=guile=guile@@2.0 guix
+guix build --with-input=guile=guile@@2.2 guix
@end example
This is a recursive, deep replacement. So in this example, both
@code{guix} and its dependency @code{guile-json} (which also depends on
-@code{guile}) get rebuilt against @code{guile@@2.0}.
+@code{guile}) get rebuilt against @code{guile@@2.2}.
-This is implemented using the @code{package-input-rewriting} Scheme
-procedure (@pxref{Defining Packages, @code{package-input-rewriting}}).
+This is implemented using the @code{package-input-rewriting/spec} Scheme
+procedure (@pxref{Defining Packages, @code{package-input-rewriting/spec}}).
@item --with-graft=@var{package}=@var{replacement}
This is similar to @option{--with-input} but with an important difference:
diff --git a/guix/packages.scm b/guix/packages.scm
index cd61878bcc..11c066b292 100644
--- a/guix/packages.scm
+++ b/guix/packages.scm
@@ -1527,9 +1527,11 @@ (define (cut? p)
(define* (package-input-rewriting/spec replacements #:key (deep? #t))
"Return a procedure that, given a package, applies the given REPLACEMENTS to
all the package graph, including implicit inputs unless DEEP? is false.
+
REPLACEMENTS is a list of spec/procedures pair; each spec is a package
specification such as \"gcc\" or \"guile@2\", and each procedure takes a
-matching package and returns a replacement for that package."
+matching package and returns a replacement for that package. Matching
+packages that have the 'hidden?' property set are not replaced."
(define table
(fold (lambda (replacement table)
(match replacement
@@ -1557,7 +1559,8 @@ (define replacement-property
(gensym " package-replacement"))
(define (rewrite p)
- (if (assq-ref (package-properties p) replacement-property)
+ (if (or (assq-ref (package-properties p) replacement-property)
+ (hidden-package? p))
p
(match (find-replacement p)
(#f p)
diff --git a/tests/packages.scm b/tests/packages.scm
index f58c47817b..446be6ba52 100644
--- a/tests/packages.scm
+++ b/tests/packages.scm
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
-;;; Copyright © 2012-2022 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2012-2023 Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org>
;;; Copyright © 2018 Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>
;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>
@@ -1577,6 +1577,24 @@ (define right-system?
(match (delete-duplicates pythons eq?)
((p) (eq? p (rewrite python))))))
+(test-assert "package-input-rewriting/spec, hidden package"
+ ;; Hidden packages are not subject to rewriting.
+ (let* ((python (hidden-package python))
+ (p0 (dummy-package "chbouib"
+ (build-system trivial-build-system)
+ (inputs (list python))))
+ (rewrite (package-input-rewriting/spec
+ `(("python" . ,(const sed)))
+ #:deep? #t))
+ (p1 (rewrite p0))
+ (bag1 (package->bag p1))
+ (pythons (filter-map (match-lambda
+ (("python" python) python)
+ (_ #f))
+ (bag-transitive-inputs bag1))))
+ (match (delete-duplicates pythons eq?)
+ ((p) (eq? p python)))))
+
(test-equal "package-input-rewriting/spec, graft"
(derivation-file-name (package-derivation %store sed))
--
2.39.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
2023-03-08 12:01 [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-03-09 20:15 ` Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via
2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via @ 2023-03-09 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès, 62047
Cc: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, Simon Tournier, Mathieu Othacehe,
Ludovic Courtès, Christopher Baines, Ricardo Wurmus
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 457 bytes --]
Hi Ludo,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Hello,
>
> This change makes things like:
>
> guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts
>
> more useful and tractable.
>
> Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
> as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:
>
> guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo'.
LGTM, and tested fine.
Best,
--
Josselin Poiret
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 682 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 2/2] packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-03-10 11:49 ` Simon Tournier
2023-03-10 16:46 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Simon Tournier @ 2023-03-10 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès, 62047; +Cc: Ludovic Courtès
Hi Ludo,
On mer., 08 mars 2023 at 13:03, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> - (let-values (((name version)
> - (package-name->name+version spec)))
> + (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))
Out of curiosity, what is the difference? Aside SRFI-71 instead of
SRFI-11? Or why do you prefer SRFI-71 over -11?
Cheers,
simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
2023-03-10 11:49 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Simon Tournier
@ 2023-03-10 16:46 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 17:44 ` Simon Tournier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-03-10 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Tournier; +Cc: 62047
Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:
> On mer., 08 mars 2023 at 13:03, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> - (let-values (((name version)
>> - (package-name->name+version spec)))
>> + (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))
>
> Out of curiosity, what is the difference? Aside SRFI-71 instead of
> SRFI-11? Or why do you prefer SRFI-71 over -11?
There’s no semantic difference, but SRFI-71 looks clearer, doesn’t it?
:-)
See
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-01/msg00234.html>
for the original proposal.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
2023-03-10 16:46 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2023-03-10 17:44 ` Simon Tournier
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Simon Tournier @ 2023-03-10 17:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 62047
Hi,
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:46, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-01/msg00234.html>
> for the original proposal.
Thanks! I had overlooked this.
Cheers,
simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
2023-03-08 12:01 [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-09 20:15 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via
@ 2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
2023-06-24 10:09 ` Josselin Poiret
2023-09-14 15:41 ` Ludovic Courtès
2 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Greg Hogan @ 2023-06-22 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès
Cc: Christopher Baines, Josselin Poiret, Mathieu Othacehe,
Ricardo Wurmus, Simon Tournier, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, guix-devel
On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 7:03 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This change makes things like:
>
> guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts
>
> more useful and tractable.
>
> Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
> as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:
>
> guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo'.
>
> Ludovic Courtès (2):
> packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
> packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages.
>
> doc/guix.texi | 21 ++++++++++++---------
> guix/packages.scm | 14 ++++++++------
> tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: 0a37921d851b94aef6900214098dc5bd62b46e26
> --
> 2.39.1
(resending to guix-devel since the bug has been archived)
Ludo',
This has broken, for example, building clang with a newer version of
gcc using package-input-rewriting/spec. What do you think of adding a
hidden? property to enable the old behavior?
Alternatively, why are gcc, binutils, and libc used as build-time
dependencies rather than gcc-toolchain? gcc-toolchain could be
rewritten as a non-hidden package and use of the toolchain would
seemingly better support profiles created with
package->development-manifest.
Greg
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
@ 2023-06-24 10:09 ` Josselin Poiret
2023-09-14 15:41 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Josselin Poiret @ 2023-06-24 10:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Hogan, Ludovic Courtès
Cc: Christopher Baines, Mathieu Othacehe, Ricardo Wurmus,
Simon Tournier, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, guix-devel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 475 bytes --]
Hi Greg,
Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com> writes:
> This has broken, for example, building clang with a newer version of
> gcc using package-input-rewriting/spec. What do you think of adding a
> hidden? property to enable the old behavior?
Since you're mentioning package-input-rewriting/spec, I assume you're
doing this in Guile? If so, package-input-rewriting doesn't have that
same behavior, and still replaces hidden packages!
HTH,
--
Josselin Poiret
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 682 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
2023-06-24 10:09 ` Josselin Poiret
@ 2023-09-14 15:41 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2023-09-14 15:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Hogan
Cc: Christopher Baines, Josselin Poiret, Mathieu Othacehe,
Ricardo Wurmus, Simon Tournier, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice, guix-devel
Hi Greg,
(It’s been two months but I completely missed this message.)
Greg Hogan <code@greghogan.com> skribis:
> On Wed, Mar 8, 2023 at 7:03 AM Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> This change makes things like:
>>
>> guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts
>>
>> more useful and tractable.
>>
>> Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
>> as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:
>>
>> guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Ludo'.
>>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2):
>> packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
>> packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages.
[...]
> This has broken, for example, building clang with a newer version of
> gcc using package-input-rewriting/spec.
As in:
guix build clang --with-c-toolchain=clang=gcc-toolchain@12
? Or some other command?
> What do you think of adding a hidden? property to enable the old
> behavior?
Maybe, but I’m not sure I fully understand the problem.
> Alternatively, why are gcc, binutils, and libc used as build-time
> dependencies rather than gcc-toolchain? gcc-toolchain could be
> rewritten as a non-hidden package and use of the toolchain would
> seemingly better support profiles created with
> package->development-manifest.
We could replace gcc, binutils, etc. with just ‘gcc-toolchain’; this
will need testing of course, but I cannot think of any issue it would
cause. (That’s a ‘core-updates’ change though.)
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-09-14 15:42 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-08 12:01 [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-08 12:03 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 2/2] packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 11:49 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11 Simon Tournier
2023-03-10 16:46 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-03-10 17:44 ` Simon Tournier
2023-03-09 20:15 ` [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages Josselin Poiret via Guix-patches via
2023-06-22 17:25 ` Greg Hogan
2023-06-24 10:09 ` Josselin Poiret
2023-09-14 15:41 ` Ludovic Courtès
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.