Hi, Kurt Kremitzki <kurt@kwk.systems> writes:
[...] > Proposal > ======= > > I would like to amend the `--with-input` syntax to allow for both addition > and > removal, for example in the case of testing optional behavior or seeing if a > dependency can be removed (imagine a `foo-minimal` variant.) I don't have any > particular preference for the syntax. I agree it'd be useful to be able to inject inputs in the graph of a psecific package. Perhaps to avoid complicating --with-input, and for being able to manipulate the various input types, we could have something like: --add-input[=a]=b --add-native-input[=a]=b --add-propagated-input[=a]=b and --remove-input[=a]=b --remove-native-input[=a]=b --remove-propagated-input[=a]=b where A denotes the package to transform, defaulting to the packages specified on the command line (e.g. guix build something --add-native-input=autoconf --add-native-input=automake) would add autoconf and automake to the native inputs of the 'something' package. > For the sake of symmetry, I also wonder if it would make any sense to allow > for removal of a configuration flag. Depending on the build system, it may be > that appending e.g. `foo=off` will supersede an earlier `foo=on`, which would > mean the existing `--with-configure-flag` behavior is enough. I don't plan to > work on this change, but thought I should just mention it. That would be useful as well. I encourage you to hack on it if you have an itch :-). -- Thanks, Maxim
