From: Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Uniformly treating native-inputs in native or cross build contexts
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2023 14:41:40 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87edqdfs7f.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v8jpwrgn.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic Courtès"'s message of "Sat, 25 Feb 2023 19:05:44 +0100")
Hi Ludovic!
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
>> In #60857, I've unified the cross/standard builders for the
>> pyproject-build-system; even their bags representation are now
>> shared. It enables fixing things such as #25235.
>
> What’s the number again? <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/60857> seems to
> be unrelated.
Oops, it's #60847 (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/60847).
>> Going forward, I think it'd be beneficial to apply the same strategy to
>> other build systems, for consistency and to allow filtering purely build
>> inputs from the inputs captured in the wrap phases.
>>
>> Thoughts, concerns?
>
> I don’t recall the detailed reasoning for doing it this way, but I think
> it was roughly along these lines: when doing a native build, there’s no
> reason to distinguish between “native inputs” and “inputs” because all
> the inputs are native. When computing search paths or iterating over
> input directories to strip, you’d just iterate over #:inputs, period.
Separate builders (like is currently done) also have another plus, which
is that bugs in the cross-compilation builder can be fixed separately
without impacting the native builder.
> In <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/25235>, we’re interested in giving
> ‘native-inputs’ a different meaning, that of build dependencies.
> Packages listed in ‘native-inputs’ are indeed usually build-only
> dependencies. Yet, we’re trying to stretch the definition of
> ‘native-inputs’ to something like ‘build-dependencies’, which leads to
> different needs.
>
> Independently of this consideration, any change in this area can be
> tricky to test: all the build systems and packages may be affected, both
> with native builds and cross builds.
>
> I’m not saying things should be set in stone but rather that one should
> be prepared for long experimentation times and coming up with a
> deprecation schedule if it turns out that the changes are introduce some
> incompatibility.
Yes; that's why starting with a builder that affects little packages
(pyproject-build-system has like 100 packages using it) gives us a nice
testing ground to validate the idea is sound.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-25 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-25 14:38 Uniformly treating native-inputs in native or cross build contexts Maxim Cournoyer
2023-02-25 18:05 ` Ludovic Courtès
2023-02-25 19:41 ` Maxim Cournoyer [this message]
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
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87edqdfs7f.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=ludo@gnu.org \
/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 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.