[bug#73073] [PATCH v3 2/8] gnu: gnome-recipes: Move libgd origin from phases to native-inputs.

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Sonntag, dem 15.12.2024 um 11:42 +0900 schrieb Maxim Cournoyer:
> Hi,
> 
> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 at 23:18, Liliana Marie Prikler
> > <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > > +                           (file-name (git-file-name
> > > > > > "libgd" version))
> > > > > 
> > > > > Not sure what the state of this is here, but again noting
> > > > > that
> > > > > "version" has no meaning in the libgd input and "checkout"
> > > > > would be
> > > > > more honest.
> > > > 
> > > > You’re right, though packages do have a ‘version’ field; use of
> > > > ‘git-file-name’ here follows established convention in Guix.
> > > 
> > > Does it?  Assume libfoo 3.0 and libbar 0.1.0 pull in the same
> > > libgd.
> > > What happens?
> > 
> > Not sure it really matter since it’s a fixed output.  The item
> > reads:
> > 
> >     /gnu/store/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-libgd-YYYY
> > 
> > where xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is determined by the SHA256
> > checksum.  Therefore, YYYY can be anything, it does not really
> > matter.
> > 
> > At worse, the item is downloaded several times, say by libfoo 3.0
> > and libbar 0.1.0.
> > 
> > All in all, I agree that the best solution here is simply:
> > 
> >     (file-name "libgd-checkout")
> 
> Not sure I understand the full context, but it seems we're talking
> about a package generator that bakes a version to some source input
> which is not the version of the source itself.  Could the
> source/origin be defined as a variable with the correct version and
> then simply provided to the package?  It's nice for store file names
> to tell the real story in general, as it makes things a bit clearer
> when debugging problems.
> 
> Apologies if I misunderstood something.
IMHO you understood correctly.

The problem with libgd is that it's "version-less" and wants to be
included as source code.  We could extract the definition, but could
only assign dummy versions at best if we do so.

Cheers