Mark,

Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

> This introduces debuginfod support which requires a couple of new inputs.
>
> * gnu/local.ml (dist_patch_DATA): Remove elfutils-tests-ptrace.patch.
>   Add elfutils-0.178-tests-build-id.patch.
> * gnu/packages/elf.scm (elfutils): Update to 0.178
>   [native-inputs]: Add iproute and pkg-config.
>   [inputs]: Add cpio, libarchive, libmicrohttpd, libcurl, rpm and sqlite.
>   [synopsis]: Updated.
>   [description]: Updated.
>   [license]: List all licenses used.
> * gnu/packages/patches/elfutils-tests-ptrace.patch: Removed. Fixed upstream.
> * gnu/packages/patches/elfutils-0.178-tests-build-id.patch: New. Patches
>   backported from upstream git.

Thank you for these improvements.  Could you submit the synopsis and
description update separately?

I worry about all the new inputs.  This patch effectively makes us
unable to update all these inputs outside of the 'staging' or
'core-updates' cycles.

What is the difference in 'guix size elfutils' with and without this
patch?

Would it make sense to have a separate 'elfutils-minimal' for use in
Mesa, and expose the debuginfod-enabled variant as a separate package?
We could "hide" the minimal variant so that end users get the expected
package.

Also, for the patches, please add links to upstream commits in the patch
files, see some of the other patches for examples.  I would also prefer
if they were separate files, seeing as the two commits do different
things.