[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs
From: |
Ivan Petkov |
Subject: |
[bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs |
Date: |
Tue, 21 May 2019 19:48:24 -0700 |
Hi Ludo!
> On May 20, 2019, at 12:38 PM, Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> +(define (package-cargo-deps p)
>> + (apply
>> + (lambda* (#:key (cargo-deps '()) #:allow-other-keys)
>> + cargo-deps)
>> + (package-arguments p)))
>
> It’s surprising style. It seems redundant with the ‘inputs’ field, but
> IIUC, the main difference here is that you can simply name dependencies,
> even if there’s no Guix package for it, right?
That’s one benefit, the other is that we’re defining our own new semantics
on the cargo-specific inputs here to be treated like propagated-inputs, but
without actually making the store install them when a Rust binary is
substituted.
>> +(define (package-cargo-dev-deps p)
>> + (apply
>> + (lambda* (#:key (cargo-dev-deps '()) #:allow-other-keys)
>> + cargo-dev-deps)
>> + (package-arguments p)))
>
> As a rule of thumb, please avoid abbreviations in identifiers (info
> "(guix) Coding Style"). So that would be
> ‘package-development-dependencies’ or something like that.
Thanks for the tip, I’ll update these names.
Since the actual cargo documentation actually refers to “dev-dependencies”
do you think it’s better to use “cargo-dev-dependencies” (for consistency that
Rust programmers might be used to), or stick with
“cargo-development-dependencies”
(for Guix consistencies)?
>> +(define (crate-transitive-deps inputs)
>> + "Return the closure of INPUTS when considering the 'cargo-deps' and
>> +'cargod-dev-deps' edges. Omit duplicate inputs, except for those
>> +already present in INPUTS itself.
>> +
>> +This is implemented as a breadth-first traversal such that INPUTS is
>> +preserved, and only duplicate extracted inputs are removed.
>> +
>> +Forked from ((guix packages) transitive-inputs) since this extraction
>> +uses slightly different rules compared to the rest of Guix (i.e. we
>> +do not extract the conventional inputs)."
>
> Perhaps call it ‘crate-closure’?
Sure that works, I’ll rename this!
>> +(define (expand-crate-sources cargo-deps cargo-dev-deps)
>> + "Extract all transitive sources for CARGO-DEPS and CARGO-DEV-DEPS along
>> their
>> +'cargo-deps' edges.
>
> Maybe s/cargo-deps/inputs/ and s/cargo-dev-deps/development-inputs/?
>
> I’d prefer to stick to the same terminology as in the rest of the code
> if we’re talking about the same sort of input lists.
I can rename this as well.
>
> That’s it. :-)
>
> Thank you for improving Rust support!
Happy to help :)
—Ivan
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ivan Petkov, 2019/05/04
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/05/06
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ivan Petkov, 2019/05/06
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ivan Petkov, 2019/05/09
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ivan Petkov, 2019/05/15
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/05/15
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ivan Petkov, 2019/05/19
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs, Ludovic Courtès, 2019/05/20
- [bug#35318] [PATCH] Update cargo-build-system to expand package inputs,
Ivan Petkov <=