Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?

[Bengt Richter]

Hi,

On +2021-09-05 09:36:30 +0200, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 04.09.2021, 17:50 -0700 schrieb Sarah Morgensen:
> > Hi Liliana,
> > 
> > (Efraim, I've Cc'd you since you're working on re-doing Rust inputs.)
> > 
> > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > Does anyone have an idea how we should handle propagations for the
> > > sake of pkg-config?  Perhaps we could add "linked-inputs", which
> > > are added when building packages and environments when not using --
> > > ad-hoc, but not when union-building profiles.  WDYT?
> > 
> > I know nothing about pkg-config, but such an input would help
> > simplify things for Go (and I think for Rust) since many inputs need
> > to be propagated only at build-time.
> To be fair, I wasn't not thinking about Go and Rust, which at least on
> the surface appear to have similar propagation semantics.  I do however
> not know whether all currently propagated inputs from those two could
> be reclassified as linked-inputs.  FWIW I don't think (most) Emacs,
> Python or Guile packages work that way, but I do know of at least one
> that would profit from having linked-inputs.
> 
> > What do you think of "build-propagated-inputs"?
> We don't call things build-inputs here in Guix land, that's a no-no :P
>

Is there an official guix  jargon file or glossary file or texi file or
wikimedia/wiktionary/wikipedia clone on gnu.org that non-cognoscenti
could use to get a clue?

Is there a thread that on that topic making any progress on making it
happen?

when someone in a thread like this offers a candidate official definition,
(off-topic sort of, but meta-on-topic for relevant documentation)
could it be snip-quoted for easy search and aggregation for maintainers
of official definitions and translations? E.g.
(or actually borrow some rfc0842 or descendant so an attached file
generates a usuable section in mail archives that can be snarfed automatically?)

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
X-Content-type: Cadidate-guix-jargon-definition
Ad lib comment and metacomment ended by blank line ...
"> We don't call things build-inputs here in Guix land, that's a no-no :P"

build-propagated-inputs:
        <please fill in :) >
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> > (A quick search of the ML turned up one previous discussion [0]; does
> > anyone know of others?)
> > 
> > [0] 
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2017-02/msg00362.html
> W.r.t. native-inputs, I think native-inputs should propagate
> propagated-inputs, but not linked-inputs.  Makes sense, doesn't it?
> 
> 

-- 
Regards,
Bengt Richter