[bug#57540] [PATCH] Please rebase (was: Add ocaml-elpi (a dependency of coq-mathcomp-analysis))

[Garek Dyszel]

Sounds like a plan. Thanks again!

At 19:39 2022-09-29 UTC+0200, Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:
> You can close by sending a reply to nnnnn-close@debbugs.gnu.org, where nnnnn 
> is the bug number. If it's easier for you, let's focus on ocaml-elpi first :)
>
> If you have any question or need help, don't hesitate to ask!
>
> Le 29 septembre 2022 19:13:25 GMT+02:00, Garek Dyszel 
> <garekdyszel@disroot.org> a écrit :
>>Hi again,
>>
>>It looks like Coq has been updated to 8.16 now, which means the two
>>packages required by coq-mathcomp-hierarchy-builder in this patchset are
>>now out of date. The build processes have completely changed for
>>ocaml-elpi and coq-elpi.
>>
>>The new ocaml-elpi build system got rather confusing and will likely
>>take me much longer than I originally expected. Maybe we could close
>>this issue? I think it might be easier if I were to send in ocaml-elpi
>>on its own, for example.
>>
>>Let me know.
>>
>>Thanks!
>>Garek
>>
>>At 09:04 2022-09-27 UTC-0400, Garek Dyszel <garekdyszel@disroot.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Julien and simon,
>>>
>>> I planned to write back yesterday but had to run out the door
>>> unexpectedly.
>>>
>>> At 18:52 2022-09-26 UTC+0200, zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For instance the series reads, ... where the logic about the order is
>>>> not obvious
>>>
>>> The logic was essentially adding dependencies in reverse order. I
>>> started with the package that I wanted to build (coq-mathcomp-analysis),
>>> and added the dependencies as I found they were needed.
>>>
>>> I'll stick with committing dependencies in forward order (committing
>>> dependencies before packages) from now on.
>>>
>>>> I have tried to clean the mess but I give up for now. :-) It would be
>>>> much easier if the series provides,
>>>>
>>>>  1. the Git commit against which revision these patches apply (see the
>>>>     option --base of git-format-patch)
>>>>
>>>>  2. the correct dependency order of the patches
>>>
>>> Probably it would also be easier to start over from the new master
>>> branch and recommit the remaining packages in the proper order.
>>>
>>> If I don't have another major interruption, I will send out a new set of
>>> commits, in the correct order, formatted with --base, before or by
>>> Friday. Excluding those packages which were already pushed to master, of
>>> course :)
>>>
>>> At 20:39 2022-09-24 UTC+0200, Julien Lepiller <julien@lepiller.eu> wrote:
>>>> No need to repeat the license here. Also, this means that the license
>>>> should be lgpl2.1+, instead of plain lgpl2.1.
>>>
>>> Ah, seems like I was getting lost in package-ception there and didn't
>>> check over the descriptions too rigorously. I'll keep this in mind when
>>> preparing the next patchset for this thread.
>>>
>>>> For python packages, I see you add python to the inputs. Why is that?
>>>> The python-build-system already provides python.
>>>
>>> I had been getting errors of the form "python3 was not found on the
>>> PATH" during the 'configure' phase of some python packages, even though
>>> the python-build-system was being used. I added python to everything to
>>> avoid such errors, but forgot to remove it for packages where it was not
>>> really needed.
>>>
>>> If I can find the first package that produced that error, I'll submit a
>>> bug report for it with the precise error quoted. 
>>>
>>>> It looks like python-jsonschema-next (4.5.1) does not have any
>>>> dependent, so updating this package instead might be better than
>>>> adding a new one, wdyt?
>>>
>>> I found evidence to the contrary, I think. With graphviz installed, I
>>> ran
>>>
>>> $ guix graph python-jsonschema > /tmp/py-js-deps.dot
>>> $ gc -n /tmp/py-js-deps.dot
>>>
>>> which says that there are 186 nodes, or (186 - 1) = 185 packages
>>> dependent on python-jsonschema-next. If you prefer viewing it as an
>>> image,
>>>
>>> $ dot /tmp/py-js-deps.dot > /tmp/py-js-deps.png
>>> $ feh /tmp/py-js-deps.png
>>>
>>> shows all 185 packages originating from the node named
>>> "python-jsonschema@4.5.1".
>>>
>>> Maybe for now we could add this transitional python-jsonschema-4.15 to
>>> build coq-mathcomp-analysis, and remove it in a subsequent patchset? I
>>> don't want to tie this patch up unnecessarily.
>>>
>>> If I have malformed patches now with only 20 packages,... well, let's
>>> just say I don't know if I want to see the results just yet, if I'll
>>> need to rebuild 185 :)
>>>
>>> -- Garek