On Wed, 07 Oct 2015 22:36:52 +0200 [email protected] (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > Efraim Flashner <[email protected]> skribis: > > > commit d04efa0fff908de0f8822a27582b4b1c3dcae553 > > Author: Efraim Flashner <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed Oct 7 14:44:59 2015 +0300 > > > > gnu: camlp4: Remove extra input. > > > > * gnu/packages/ocaml.scm (camlp4)[inputs]: Removed duplicate "ocaml" > > entry from native-inputs. > > --- > > gnu/packages/ocaml.scm | 3 +-- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm b/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm > > index fc45805..0302c85 100644 > > --- a/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm > > +++ b/gnu/packages/ocaml.scm > > @@ -208,8 +208,7 @@ Git-friendly development workflow.") > > "0icdfzhsbgf89925gc8gl3fm8z2xzszzlib0v9dj5wyzkyv3a342")) > > (file-name (string-append name "-" version ".tar.gz")))) > > (build-system gnu-build-system) > > - (native-inputs `(("ocaml" ,ocaml) > > - ("which" ,which))) > > + (native-inputs `(("which" ,which))) > > (inputs `(("ocaml" ,ocaml))) > > This was probably correct: When cross-compiling, you would both need the > compiler (in ‘native-inputs’) and the run-time support library (thus in > ‘inputs’.) > > Now, this is mostly theoretical in this case because it would probably > take more than this to cross-compile OCaml code. > > Ludo’.
Should I go ahead and revert the change? I was starting to work on getting opam to build and I noticed this. I suppose at a minimum it doesn't hurt to have it in native-inputs and in inputs, it just didn't look right. -- Efraim Flashner <[email protected]> אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
pgpyk3oVHhmmf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
