Hi Andreas, On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 14:16, Andreas Enge <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:39:29PM +0100 schrieb zimoun:
>> Is the package ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible with [email protected] >> needed? Indeed, maybe it could be dropped, especially if it is broken >> for some use-case. > > I do not know whether it is broken; Sorry if I have misunderstood your initial message, quoting: « I have the impression that my past problems with using valgrind have been solved since the upgrade to 3.20.0 ». > the question is rather whether it is > needed: We do not normally keep several versions of packages around unless > there is a good reason, and if there is one, it does not seem to be > documented here. Yes, I agree with your question. >From my point of view, the package referred by the symbol ’valgrind/interactive’ accessible by the user with “[email protected]” and providing an expected Valgrind at version 3.17 is not needed and it could be dropped. > Similarly for valgrind-noninteractive 3.17; maybe if it is to be removed > and replaced by valgrind-noninteractive 3.20, this will have to be done > on a particular branch, or maybe it is indeed needed. The removal of the hidden package referred by the symbol ’valgrind’ (I guess what you are naming valgrind-noninteractive 3.17) is a core-updates change. It is difficult to say if the update from 3.17 to 3.20 will be smooth or not; ~1000+ packages at least are impacted by such update. Therefore, yes this package is needed for master. :-) > The need for valgrind-noninteractive is also unclear. Since it is an hidden package, it is not straightforward to evaluate the closure. I guess, this difference between valgrind and valgrind/interactive (whatever the version) is about the closure. Well, the package referred by the symbol ’valgrind/interactive’ should be replaced by what ’valgrind-3.20’ provides. Done with patch#61199 [1]. 1: http://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/61199 Cheers, simon
