From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50413) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fFmC3-0004p3-9t for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 15:53:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fFmBy-0002kA-Aq for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 15:53:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:45315) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fFmBy-0002jt-5r for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 15:53:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fFmBx-0002GI-Py for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 07 May 2018 15:53:01 -0400 Subject: [bug#31176] [bug#31178] [PATCH] gnu: Add inxi. Resent-Message-ID: From: Peter Neidhardt References: <20180416123830.28716-1-ambrevar@gmail.com> <87r2n6gbpg.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh7mr17w.fsf@gmail.com> <87in8ifqdc.fsf@gmail.com> <87r2n6qydr.fsf@gmail.com> <87po2j81jn.fsf@gnu.org> <8736zd7w0s.fsf@gmail.com> <877eop0zzn.fsf@gnu.org> <87sh7c7u4w.fsf@gmail.com> <874ljstsei.fsf@gmail.com> <87vac1ce7v.fsf@gmail.com> <87o9hs52sj.fsf@gmail.com> <87vabzai2z.fsf@gmail.com> <87fu3332ms.fsf@gmail.com> In-reply-to: <87fu3332ms.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 21:52:26 +0200 Message-ID: <87tvrj9rb9.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Oleg Pykhalov Cc: 31178@debbugs.gnu.org, 31176@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oleg Pykhalov writes: >> So what are the rules for garbage collection then? I'm confused... >> I don't see how _some_ inputs could get garbage collected and others not. > > When =E2=80=98guix gc --references PATH=E2=80=99 shows a =E2=80=98/gnu/st= ore/=E2=80=A6-INPUT=E2=80=99, > then =E2=80=98/gnu/store/=E2=80=A6-INPUT=E2=80=99 *will not* be garbage c= ollected. > > For example: > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ guix gc --references $(env GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH=3D guix build --no-grafts = inxi) > [=E2=80=A6] > /gnu/store/=E2=80=A6-file-5.32 > [=E2=80=A6] > /gnu/store/=E2=80=A6-xrandr-1.5.0 > /gnu/store/=E2=80=A6-xprop-1.2.3 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > =E2=80=98file=E2=80=99, =E2=80=98xrandr=E2=80=99 and =E2=80=98xprop=E2=80= =99 packages *will not* be garbage collected. In understand that, my question was _why_ would some inputs get garbage collected, and why not. My question is on from a logical perspective in terms of functional package management. Other than that, the patch looks good to me, feel free to merge! :) =2D-=20 Peter Neidhardt --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEUPM+LlsMPZAEJKvom9z0l6S7zH8FAlrwrnoACgkQm9z0l6S7 zH8RKQf+PplYm4UWpxfzVLVOxWDSra/ol/3Vaw4qxpwMtD/aA03paummGyrTF4Bj 4dRrSRXorukkBXIj9Ul/RvOq/zdtxpJpvZ7Y533quQb9oqZvrjL4nGz3/JNXOnLo W3Yswh5S8DwxQJRae46/nFlnEtE3B5OmvVkUWjU8S91le/M4q6JwJulXK1amfUxz kyvLjnH/qe/aX9csYkAwsqZqim1qgTm7fV9RCjYz+p1CK9QI+qvLVgjtmgN5OEOO 699DL61Onx7TgufufdQ9v8WixQSa7oSEa1kEq8n6lhaNJzArFmFBSCZZs7DwcjLW qRw4f8/FcgfKGHDHYE13SYiTyNog3Q== =UDZz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--