From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp1 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id 2P0xFjt0HmB2IQAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:49:31 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp1 with LMTPS id wEPCETt0HmA5WwAAbx9fmQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:49:31 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 953C5940276 for ; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 10:49:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:46286 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L9d-0002me-Hx for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:49:29 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35480) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L9C-0002m7-Lj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:49:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33603) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L9B-0003cN-MM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:49:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L9B-0002rd-Kj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:49:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#46215] [PATCH] Add yadm Resent-From: Leo Prikler Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:49:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 46215 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ellis =?UTF-8?Q?Keny=C5=91?= Cc: 46215@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 46215-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B46215.161260850410952 (code B ref 46215); Sat, 06 Feb 2021 10:49:01 +0000 Received: (at 46215) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Feb 2021 10:48:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45149 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L8a-0002qa-C1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:48:24 -0500 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:62533) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1l8L8W-0002qJ-VO for 46215@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Feb 2021 05:48:22 -0500 Received: from nijino.local (217-149-173-242.nat.highway.telekom.at [217.149.173.242]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DXpss6kxmz1LBRv; Sat, 6 Feb 2021 11:48:17 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4DXpss6kxmz1LBRv DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1612608498; bh=EptUb2CV1WVSXe/IXiO4UYsGIUV05oVZoh3dmzemxog=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=CFffWvPJkwqfTUk3DC02Yj4OfN9/r2kFjGvbb/gNqoXC+rKkHAmOBa5EuTUfUjx7r r/YKbkkYgKo1n9mUpRxvgHCdNYcxTqCoHv3LSVYzJaV8Vg2gUWAgSrepmsMVu1Mlsc p/DEdWfQvs6E80JhRWV82pNfH2r9egjh82l6WIUY= Message-ID: From: Leo Prikler Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2021 11:48:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87pn1dpkwr.fsf@elken.dev> References: <20210131164721.8792-1-me@elken.dev> <84ab5054792abeb5e9b85d21229cd7182204d817.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87czxkc0yv.fsf@elken.dev> <0ff6a0c2cc9a2f65cd51c1eeb9e6a33aa4789766.camel@student.tugraz.at> <669deac8-ffa5-42ba-8741-3cae0b18220e@elken.dev> <38ed969df583e9254802fa7a4a80299ec5caddc4.camel@student.tugraz.at> <9efaa5895bc488ddd4fd8c456aa5c2fdf09cb4af.camel@student.tugraz.at> <87pn1dpkwr.fsf@elken.dev> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.116 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.26 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b=CFffWvPJ; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=student.tugraz.at (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 953C5940276 X-Spam-Score: -1.26 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: WjIgq5OVHziO Hi Ellis, Am Samstag, den 06.02.2021, 10:05 +0000 schrieb Ellis Kenyő: > I don't think you're understanding my question. > > A number of the dependencies are optional, for example some of the > jinja template commands. And Guix' policy is – as I've already pointed out – to provide such optional dependencies as inputs up to a reasonable limit in closure size. > When this builds, if those packages aren't installed before you > install yadm, the path gets set to `#f`. That's not how building works. If jinja is *present in the build environment*, it is available for substitution. This has nothing to do with packages the user may or may not have installed at that point. If not, then yeah, you end up with #f. It makes no sense to set up substitutions for commands, that aren't present in the build environment. > If you then later install them (one of them for example is a > python module so likely wouldn't be installed through guix), the > path in yadm is still `#f` so it would never find them. You can and should install python packages through Guix. We here at Guix Solutions™ do not approve of the need for programming language specific package managers, especially not multiple ones within the same project. > Do I have to also package everything it has a soft dependency on? As long as it can reasonably be expected, that users will want it, yes. If the soft dependency is indeed completely optional, the software works perfectly fine without it and few people will be negatively impacted by a minor feature missing, then it's fine to leave it as-is, provided that the missing dependency is itself free software. If there is an optional dependency on non-free software, mentions of that software should be removed. Regards, Leo