On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 07:17:35PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > The only change you actually made to messaging.scm in this commit was to > add your copyright notice.
That was a mistake, I intended to make the change announced in the commit message. Probably a consequence of juggling with too many files, since I also built all the modified packages (with the exception of icecat) to make sure everything still works. > However, I have a larger question about this commit: Should 'dbus' and > 'glib' be removed from the inputs of every package that has 'dbus-glib' > as an input? My answer would be "not necessarily". IMO, the only time > we should remove input A from a package is when it doesn't use A > directly. I have no definite answer to this. Not removing them would definitely mean less work. Even more so since it is not easy to determine the transitive closure of propagation: If A is propagated by B and B is propagated by C, then everything including C does not need to include A. In practice, for a new package, I am usually building with incrementally more inputs, following the complaints by the configure phase. So if it first complains about dbus-glib, I would add it, and not see any complaints about dbus and glib, which would not be included. If it first complains about glib, then dbus, then dbus-glib, I would add all three and maybe not even see that one of them is enough. Contrarily to you, I wondered whether we should not even build a linter to verify if propagated inputs could not be dropped as explicit inputs... But I think it would make for a lot of work with little effect anyway. So maybe we should not do anything special and just let randomness take its course in this matter? Andreas
