From: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
To: "Ludovic Courtès" <ludo@gnu.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: 01/01: gnu: dbus-glib: Propagate inputs dbus and glib.
Date: Sun, 24 May 2015 10:33:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lhge11we.fsf@netris.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87382m86c6.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Sun, 24 May 2015 15:15:21 +0200")
ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Commit 2e88d11 suggests that dbus-glib-1.pc mentions GLib and DBus.
> That’s one of the two criteria that we use to add propagate inputs.
> So that part of the commit is OK.
>
> As for removing DBus and GLib as inputs of the other packages, it’s
> really a question of whether the package uses them directly or not, as
> Mark wrote. This would need to be checked for each of them. The
> conservative approach would be to leave DBus and GLib as inputs until we
> have evidence that the package in fact only needs dbus-glib.
Agreed.
> Should we revert that part of the commit, at least for packages for
> which we don’t know?
FWIW, I don't feel the need to revert, especially since it would entail
more rebuilding, but in the future I would prefer to use the more
conservative approach that you outlined above.
Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> writes:
> In practice, for a new package, I am usually building with incrementally more
> inputs, following the complaints by the configure phase. So if it first
> complains about dbus-glib, I would add it, and not see any complaints about
> dbus and glib, which would not be included. If it first complains about glib,
> then dbus, then dbus-glib, I would add all three and maybe not even see that
> one of them is enough.
Fair enough :) I suspect that's the way most of our packages were built,
and that's okay. For that matter, I suspect that's the way most authors
of C files determine which header files to #include.
> So maybe we should not do anything special and just let randomness take its
> course in this matter?
I don't think we should spend a lot of time on this, but to the extent
we are aware of which inputs are directly needed by a given package, I
think we should aim to include all directly used inputs, as opposed to
aiming to remove inputs whenever they are propagated by something else.
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-24 14:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20150523153249.19884.3207@vcs.savannah.gnu.org>
[not found] ` <E1YwBPu-0005Be-7W@vcs.savannah.gnu.org>
2015-05-23 23:17 ` 01/01: gnu: dbus-glib: Propagate inputs dbus and glib Mark H Weaver
2015-05-24 7:34 ` Andreas Enge
2015-05-24 13:15 ` Ludovic Courtès
2015-05-24 14:33 ` Mark H Weaver [this message]
2015-05-24 20:14 ` Andreas Enge
2015-05-25 13:17 ` Ludovic Courtès
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=87lhge11we.fsf@netris.org \
--to=mhw@netris.org \
--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.