Hello!
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> Here’s a proposal for a soft revolution: getting rid of input labels
> in package definitions. Instead of writing:
>
> (native-inputs
> `(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
>("automake" ,automake)
>("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
>("guile"
Hi,
Ryan Prior skribis:
> I think there's an opportunity to avoid the need to "fall back" to the status
> quo, though. I picture a structure for inputs that has three cases, trivially
> decided based on data shape:
>
> - a bare symbol, eg '(tzdata glib)
> this is translated to `(("tzdata"
On Wednesday, May 26th, 2021 at 2:02 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Could the new syntax accept both variables and specifications, e.g.,
> >
> > (list "glib:bin" foo "bar@2.3")
> >
> > ?
>
> No! I mean, yes it could, but no, I don’t think that’s a good idea.
>
> :-)
>
> In terms of API, I prefer
Ludovic Courtès schreef op wo 26-05-2021 om 15:43 [+0200]:
> Hi Maxime,
>[...]
> In many cases, you don’t need the ability to refer to a specific input;
> you just need all the inputs to contribute to search path environment
> variables, and that’s enough. A “label collision” does not matter at
>
Hello,
Nicolas Goaziou skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
[...]
>> • Packages such as ‘tzdata’ use labels to refer to non-package
>> inputs. These cannot be converted to the automatic labeling
>> style, or not without extra changes.
>
> Would it be possible to write something like
Hi Maxime,
Maxime Devos skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès schreef op do 20-05-2021 om 16:58 [+0200]:
>> Hello Guix!
>>
>> Here’s a proposal for a soft revolution: getting rid of input labels
>> in package definitions. Instead of writing: [...]
>>
>> one can write:
>>
>> (native-inputs (list
Hi Vincent,
Vincent Legoll skribis:
> What about
>
>> (native-inputs
>> `(,autoconf
>>("truc" ,muche)
>>"pkg-config"
>> ))
>
> i.e. allowing package objects, tuples and names, and it would DTRT ?
>
> Wouldn't something like that be possible ?
It would be possible,
Hello,
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Here’s a proposal for a soft revolution: getting rid of input labels
> in package definitions. Instead of writing:
>
> (native-inputs
> `(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
>("automake" ,automake)
>("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
>("guile"
Ludovic Courtès schreef op do 20-05-2021 om 16:58 [+0200]:
> Hello Guix!
>
> Here’s a proposal for a soft revolution: getting rid of input labels
> in package definitions. Instead of writing: [...]
>
> one can write:
>
> (native-inputs (list autoconf automake pkg-config guile-3.0))
>
Hello,
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:03 PM Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Instead of writing:
>
> (native-inputs
> `(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
>("automake" ,automake)
>("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
>("guile" ,guile-3.0)))
>
> one can write:
>
> (native-inputs (list autoconf
Hello Guix!
Here’s a proposal for a soft revolution: getting rid of input labels
in package definitions. Instead of writing:
(native-inputs
`(("autoconf" ,autoconf)
("automake" ,automake)
("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
("guile" ,guile-3.0)))
one can write:
11 matches
Mail list logo
