[bug#72925] [PATCH v3] adding jpm package

[Omar Bassam <omar.bassam88@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1634 bytes --]

Hi Suhail,
I just have some questions before submitting v8 if you don't mind. just to
make sure I understand correctly.

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 04:40, Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com> wrote:

> Suhail Singh <suhailsingh247@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> I don't think this should be related to this patch.
> >
> > As I mentioned previously, I believe your packaging of "jpm" is
> > correctly done.
>
> After having taken a look at the source of JPM, I believe I was
> previously mistaken.  I don't believe the JPM packaging is correct.  And
> I do believe that the issue I was observing is related to the patch.
>
> Specifically, in the file "configs/linux_config.janet", among other
> things, the below are set
>
> #+begin_src janet
>    :c++ "c++"
>    :c++-link "c++"
>    :cc "cc"
>    :cc-link "cc"
> #+end_src
>
> Since Guix, as far as I know, doesn't have packages that provide c++ nor
> cc, I believe the above need to be patched to refer to gcc and g++
> respectively.
>
> So we need to substitute the above "c++" and "cc" in the
"configs/linux_config.janet" to point to the absolute path for the gcc and
g++ packages?
Should we also replace other commands that are hard-coded like "cp" and
"chown" from coreutils the same way I did in my first initial patch?

Further, I believe JPM should have a few propagated inputs:
> - gcc-toolchain
> - curl
> - git
> - nss-certs.
>
> I understand why we need gcc-toolchain. But why do we need curl, git and
nss-certs?

Please address the above two in v8 if you agree.  If not, please help me
> understand where I may have erred in the analysis above.
>
> --
> Suhail
>

Thanks,
Omar

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2800 bytes --]