Re: Recursively propagate build-system 'arguments' to dependency packages?

Re: Recursively propagate build-system 'arguments' to dependency packages?

[Federico Beffa]

Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> writes:

> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 21:09:33 +0000
> Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Trying to define a package to be compiled by ghc-8, and I think all of
>> its dependencies must also be compiled by ghc-8 rather than ghc (which
>> is version 7).  This is easy to do with one package, e.g..:
>>
>> (define-module (my-packages myhaskell)
>>  ...
>>   #:use-module ((gnu packages haskell) #:prefix haskellmain:))
>>
>> (define-public ghc-hunit8
>>   (package
>>     (inherit haskellmain:ghc-hunit)
>>     (arguments `(#:haskell ,ghc-8))))
>>
>> To do that recursively for all the dependencies seems Too Difficult so,
>> is there a way to do something like --with-input=ghc=ghc-8 but with the
>> build-system arguments?  Perhaps doing the work in between the Bag and
>> the Derivation?
>
> You may take a look at the 'package-with-python2' procedure in
> guix/build-system/python.scm, which seems like it could be adapted to
> work with haskell/ghc packages.

Hi Eric, Myles,

it seems that the only Python specific part of
'package-with-explicit-python' is the keyword '#:python'. What do you
think of generalizing it by making it a function keyword argument and
move the procedure to its own module (maybe (guix build-system
utils)?).

Regards,
Fede

Re: Recursively propagate build-system 'arguments' to dependency packages?

[Myles English]

Hello Fede, Eric,

on [2017-02-07] at 15:15 Federico Beffa writes:

> Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 21:09:33 +0000
>> Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Trying to define a package to be compiled by ghc-8, and I think all of
>>> its dependencies must also be compiled by ghc-8 rather than ghc (which
>>> is version 7).  This is easy to do with one package, e.g..:
>>>
>>> (define-module (my-packages myhaskell)
>>>  ...
>>>   #:use-module ((gnu packages haskell) #:prefix haskellmain:))
>>>
>>> (define-public ghc-hunit8
>>>   (package
>>>     (inherit haskellmain:ghc-hunit)
>>>     (arguments `(#:haskell ,ghc-8))))
>>>
>>> To do that recursively for all the dependencies seems Too Difficult so,
>>> is there a way to do something like --with-input=ghc=ghc-8 but with the
>>> build-system arguments?  Perhaps doing the work in between the Bag and
>>> the Derivation?

Thanks Eric for your suggestion. I made a start on this...

>> You may take a look at the 'package-with-python2' procedure in
>> guix/build-system/python.scm, which seems like it could be adapted to
>> work with haskell/ghc packages.
>
> Hi Eric, Myles,
>
> it seems that the only Python specific part of
> 'package-with-explicit-python' is the keyword '#:python'. What do you
> think of generalizing it by making it a function keyword argument and
> move the procedure to its own module (maybe (guix build-system
> utils)?).

...I came the same conclusion as Fede: it could be generalised.  It is
probably close to working for me (with respect to ghc) so I will keep
going for now.  I am not competent enough to generalise it but if
someone else does I can help test it.

Myles

Re: Recursively propagate build-system 'arguments' to dependency packages?

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello Fede, Eric,
>
> on [2017-02-07] at 15:15 Federico Beffa writes:
>
>> Eric Bavier <ericbavier@openmailbox.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2017 21:09:33 +0000
>>> Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Trying to define a package to be compiled by ghc-8, and I think all of
>>>> its dependencies must also be compiled by ghc-8 rather than ghc (which
>>>> is version 7).  This is easy to do with one package, e.g..:
>>>>
>>>> (define-module (my-packages myhaskell)
>>>>  ...
>>>>   #:use-module ((gnu packages haskell) #:prefix haskellmain:))
>>>>
>>>> (define-public ghc-hunit8
>>>>   (package
>>>>     (inherit haskellmain:ghc-hunit)
>>>>     (arguments `(#:haskell ,ghc-8))))
>>>>
>>>> To do that recursively for all the dependencies seems Too Difficult so,
>>>> is there a way to do something like --with-input=ghc=ghc-8 but with the
>>>> build-system arguments?  Perhaps doing the work in between the Bag and
>>>> the Derivation?
>
> Thanks Eric for your suggestion. I made a start on this...
>
>>> You may take a look at the 'package-with-python2' procedure in
>>> guix/build-system/python.scm, which seems like it could be adapted to
>>> work with haskell/ghc packages.
>>
>> Hi Eric, Myles,
>>
>> it seems that the only Python specific part of
>> 'package-with-explicit-python' is the keyword '#:python'. What do you
>> think of generalizing it by making it a function keyword argument and
>> move the procedure to its own module (maybe (guix build-system
>> utils)?).
>
> ...I came the same conclusion as Fede: it could be generalised.  It is
> probably close to working for me (with respect to ghc) so I will keep
> going for now.  I am not competent enough to generalise it but if
> someone else does I can help test it.

I’m doing the same for some Perl packages.  I defined a procedure
“package-for-perl-5.14” which takes a package and rewrites it.

It looks like this:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
(define (package-for-perl-5.14 pkg)
  (let* ((rewriter (package-input-rewriting `((,perl . ,perl-5.14))
                                            perl-5.14-package-name))
         (new (rewriter pkg)))
    (package
     (inherit new)
     (arguments `(#:perl ,perl-5.14
                  ,@(package-arguments new))))))
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

The problem here is that it doesn’t rewrite the “#:perl” argument
recursively, so the dependencies of a Perl package will still refer to
the latest version of Perl as that’s what’s used in the build system.

We would need a solution that would take care of this problem for all
build systems.

--
Ricardo

GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6  2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC
https://elephly.net

Generalizing DAG rewriting

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi!

Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:

> Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hello Fede, Eric,
>>
>> on [2017-02-07] at 15:15 Federico Beffa writes:

[...]

>>> it seems that the only Python specific part of
>>> 'package-with-explicit-python' is the keyword '#:python'. What do you
>>> think of generalizing it by making it a function keyword argument and
>>> move the procedure to its own module (maybe (guix build-system
>>> utils)?).
>>
>> ...I came the same conclusion as Fede: it could be generalised.  It is
>> probably close to working for me (with respect to ghc) so I will keep
>> going for now.  I am not competent enough to generalise it but if
>> someone else does I can help test it.
>
> I’m doing the same for some Perl packages.  I defined a procedure
> “package-for-perl-5.14” which takes a package and rewrites it.
>
> It looks like this:
>
> (define (package-for-perl-5.14 pkg)
>   (let* ((rewriter (package-input-rewriting `((,perl . ,perl-5.14))
>                                             perl-5.14-package-name))
>          (new (rewriter pkg)))
>     (package
>      (inherit new)
>      (arguments `(#:perl ,perl-5.14
>                   ,@(package-arguments new))))))
>
> The problem here is that it doesn’t rewrite the “#:perl” argument
> recursively, so the dependencies of a Perl package will still refer to
> the latest version of Perl as that’s what’s used in the build system.
>
> We would need a solution that would take care of this problem for all
> build systems.

I agree that this is asking for generalization.

Another instance of DAG rewriting is the ‘package-with-’ helpers in
(guix build-system gnu).

We should have a general form of transformation procedure that handles
DAG traversal and memoization like all these procedures do.

Ludo’.

Re: Generalizing DAG rewriting

[Amirouche]

Le 09/02/2017 à 10:55, Ludovic Courtès a écrit :
> Hi!
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> skribis:
>
>> Myles English <mylesenglish@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hello Fede, Eric,
>>>
>>> on [2017-02-07] at 15:15 Federico Beffa writes:
> [...]
>
>>>> it seems that the only Python specific part of
>>>> 'package-with-explicit-python' is the keyword '#:python'. What do you
>>>> think of generalizing it by making it a function keyword argument and
>>>> move the procedure to its own module (maybe (guix build-system
>>>> utils)?).
>>> ...I came the same conclusion as Fede: it could be generalised.  It is
>>> probably close to working for me (with respect to ghc) so I will keep
>>> going for now.  I am not competent enough to generalise it but if
>>> someone else does I can help test it.
>> I’m doing the same for some Perl packages.  I defined a procedure
>> “package-for-perl-5.14” which takes a package and rewrites it.
>>
>> It looks like this:
>>
>> (define (package-for-perl-5.14 pkg)
>>    (let* ((rewriter (package-input-rewriting `((,perl . ,perl-5.14))
>>                                              perl-5.14-package-name))
>>           (new (rewriter pkg)))
>>      (package
>>       (inherit new)
>>       (arguments `(#:perl ,perl-5.14
>>                    ,@(package-arguments new))))))
>>
>> The problem here is that it doesn’t rewrite the “#:perl” argument
>> recursively, so the dependencies of a Perl package will still refer to
>> the latest version of Perl as that’s what’s used in the build system.
>>
>> We would need a solution that would take care of this problem for all
>> build systems.
> I agree that this is asking for generalization.
>
> Another instance of DAG rewriting is the ‘package-with-’ helpers in
> (guix build-system gnu).
>
> We should have a general form of transformation procedure that handles
> DAG traversal and memoization like all these procedures do.

FWIW, I am very much interested in what you will come up with.

How is different what you want to achieve from SXML Tree Fold [0]?

[0] 
https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/SXML-Tree-Fold.html#SXML-Tree-Fold

Wikipedia's graph rewriting [2] page cites a few softwares that deals with
the issue along with some theory.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_rewriting

The place where I will need DAG rewriting is the replacement ReLeX (from
opencog which AFAIK does graph rewriting somehow) and semantic/intent
framing.

I think opencog deals with graph rewriting in general (not only DAG) and
they must support heterogeneous vertex types whereas guix deals exclusively
with DAG and packages as vertices. Also AFAIK, they do not traverse the
(hyper) graph but patttern match subgraphs with placeholders called
Varéntax *similar*
to the following:

(define has-perl-dependency/pattern '(Package
(Package/version $version))  ;; exemple use of a variable in the pattern
(Package/inputs (ListLink "perl" $inputs ...)
                                                              ...))

PS: I don't think opencog support `...`

Basically they have a DSL to declare graph templates to execute pattern
match against them, just like we do in scheme with lists using ice-9 match.

Maybe one can do the following against a given PKG:

- If PKG has perl as dependency replace it with perl-5
- Compute new input of PKG: recurse and replace inputs with the returned 
value
- Return new-pkg (which can be the same as PKG if none of its ancestors 
have perl input).

I think that you look for an API where the transformation is not always 
about the inputs, isn't it?

WDYT of my rambling?



[3] here be dragons: http://wiki.opencog.org/w/VariableNode & 
http://wiki.opencog.org/w/SatisfactionLink_and_BindLink

Re: Generalizing DAG rewriting

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Amirouche,

Amirouche <amirouche@hypermove.net> skribis:

> Le 09/02/2017 à 10:55, Ludovic Courtès a écrit :

[...]

>> I agree that this is asking for generalization.
>>
>> Another instance of DAG rewriting is the ‘package-with-’ helpers in
>> (guix build-system gnu).
>>
>> We should have a general form of transformation procedure that handles
>> DAG traversal and memoization like all these procedures do.
>
> FWIW, I am very much interested in what you will come up with.
>
> How is different what you want to achieve from SXML Tree Fold [0]?

Here’s we’re dealing with DAGs, not just trees, so the notion of ‘up’
and ‘down’ doesn’t directly apply.  But apart from that, we’re
essentially writing a combinator to traverse the DAG, which is similar.

> Wikipedia's graph rewriting [2] page cites a few softwares that deals with
> the issue along with some theory.
>
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_rewriting
>
> The place where I will need DAG rewriting is the replacement ReLeX (from
> opencog which AFAIK does graph rewriting somehow) and semantic/intent
> framing.

[...]

> WDYT of my rambling?

Heheh.  :-)  I think it’s interesting, but I’m not sure the actual
pieces of software you mention could be used here.  At this point we
have fairly simple use cases, and a rewriting procedure like
‘package-input-rewriting’ is around 20 lines of code.

That said, there’s a need for generalized graph tools, and also tools in
(guix graph) that would allow us to get various graph metrics
efficiently (things like computing the “rank” of a node).  So if you’re
into graphs you might be interested in fiddling with (guix graph) and
see what cool things could be done.

Thanks,
Ludo’.