Hi, Maxim Cournoyer <[email protected]> skribis:
> I was trying to simplify the Jami packaging tooling using the latest > recursive '--with-source' transformation, like so (in a Makefile): > > define guix-pack-command > guix pack -C xz -f deb -f > extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-manifest.scm -v3 \ > --with-source=libjami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \ > > --with-patch=libjami=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/patches/jami-disable-integration-tests.patch > \ > --with-source=jami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \ > -S /usr/bin/jami=bin/jami \ > -S /usr/share/applications/jami.desktop=share/applications/jami.desktop \ > -S > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg=share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg > \ > -S > /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png=share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png > \ > -S /usr/share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml=share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml \ > --postinst-file=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-deb.postinst > endef Interesting! :-) > But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for > the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the > guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest. Indeed, that’s expected. > It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any > packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection, > a file, a manifest or another means. I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally. Incidentally, changing that would likely break existing workflows… Ludo’.
