--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
package transformations not honored working from a manifest |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Feb 2023 08:23:51 -0500 |
Hi Guix,
I was trying to simplify the Jami packaging tooling using the latest
recursive '--with-source' transformation, like so (in a Makefile):
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
define guix-pack-command
guix pack -C xz -f deb -f
extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-manifest.scm -v3 \
--with-source=libjami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \
--with-patch=libjami=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/patches/jami-disable-integration-tests.patch
\
--with-source=jami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \
-S /usr/bin/jami=bin/jami \
-S /usr/share/applications/jami.desktop=share/applications/jami.desktop \
-S
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg=share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg
\
-S
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png=share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png
\
-S /usr/share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml=share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml \
--postinst-file=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-deb.postinst
endef
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for
the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the
guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest.
It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any
packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,
a file, a manifest or another means.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: bug#61676: package transformations not honored working from a manifest |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Mar 2023 12:01:53 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Ludovic,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
>
>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> [...]
>
>>> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any
>>> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,
>>> a file, a manifest or another means.
>>
>> I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.
>>
>> Incidentally, changing that would likely break existing workflows…
>
> Consequently, my inclination would be to close this issue as “wontfix”.
>
> WDYT?
Sounds reasonable; we can focus our energy on trying to improve #61684 instead.
--
Thanks,
Maxim
--- End Message ---