[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?
From: |
zimoun |
Subject: |
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs? |
Date: |
Mon, 06 Sep 2021 09:32:57 +0200 |
Hi,
On Sat, 04 Sep 2021 at 20:24, Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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?
The TODO file contains:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
** extend ‘propagated-build-inputs’ with support for multiple outputs
#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
(outputs '("out" "include"))
(propagated-build-inputs
`(((("i1" ,p1 "o1")
("i2" ,p2))
=> "include")
("i3" ,p3)))
#+END_SRC
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
<https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/TODO#n37>
which seems a direction the discussion currently takes. Maybe it could
be worth to dig the history and resume this previous discussion.
Cheers,
simon
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, (continued)
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Maxim Cournoyer, 2021/09/06
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/06
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Sarah Morgensen, 2021/09/07
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Liliana Marie Prikler, 2021/09/08
- Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, iskarian, 2021/09/08
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/09/08
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?, zimoun, 2021/09/08
Re: Rethinking propagated inputs?,
zimoun <=