On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 12:37:20PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > "pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" <[email protected]> skribis: > > Another example where @code{propagated-inputs} is useful is for languages > > that lack a facility to record the run-time search path akin to the > > @code{RUNPATH} of ELF files; this includes Guile, Python, Perl, and > > -more. To ensure that libraries written in those languages can find > > -library code they depend on at run time, run-time dependencies must be > > -listed in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}. > > +more. When packaging libraries written in those languages, ensure they > > can find > > +library code they depend on at run time by listing run-time dependencies > > +in @code{propagated-inputs} rather than @code{inputs}. > > I’m not convinced about this hunk; it uses imperative tense towards the > reader to state the same thing no?
The difference is “When packaging libraries”. I suppose the intention is that propagated-inputs be declared as part of library packages and not as part of the application using those libraries. I am unsure if I understand correctly if “When packaging libraries” is not explicitly stated. Regards, Florian
