GNU bug report logs - #62047
[PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 62047 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 62047 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace hidden packages
Date: Wed,  8 Mar 2023 13:01:25 +0100

Hello,

This change makes things like:

  guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts

more useful and tractable.

Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:

  guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n

Thoughts?

Ludo'.

Ludovic Courtès (2):
  packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
  packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden packages.

 doc/guix.texi      | 21 ++++++++++++---------
 guix/packages.scm  | 14 ++++++++------
 tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)


base-commit: 0a37921d851b94aef6900214098dc5bd62b46e26
-- 
2.39.1

Message #8 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
Date: Wed,  8 Mar 2023 13:03:44 +0100

* guix/packages.scm (package-input-rewriting/spec): Use SRFI-71 'let'.
---
 guix/packages.scm | 7 +++----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/guix/packages.scm b/guix/packages.scm
index 041a872f9d..cd61878bcc 100644
--- a/guix/packages.scm
+++ b/guix/packages.scm
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
-;;; Copyright © 2012-2022 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2012-2023 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 Mark H Weaver <mhw <at> netris.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2015 Eric Bavier <bavier <at> member.fsf.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2016 Alex Kost <alezost <at> gmail.com>
@@ -51,10 +51,10 @@ (define-module (guix packages)
   #:use-module (ice-9 regex)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-1)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-9 gnu)
-  #:use-module (srfi srfi-11)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-26)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-34)
   #:use-module (srfi srfi-35)
+  #:use-module (srfi srfi-71)
   #:use-module (rnrs bytevectors)
   #:use-module (web uri)
   #:autoload   (texinfo) (texi-fragment->stexi)
@@ -1534,8 +1534,7 @@ (define table
     (fold (lambda (replacement table)
             (match replacement
               ((spec . proc)
-               (let-values (((name version)
-                             (package-name->name+version spec)))
+               (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))
                  (vhash-cons name (list version proc) table)))))
           vlist-null
           replacements))
-- 
2.39.1

Message #11 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] packages: 'package-input-rewriting/spec' ignores hidden
 packages.
Date: Wed,  8 Mar 2023 13:03:45 +0100

The primary motivation is to support things like:

  guix build guix --with-input=guile=guile-next

without triggering a rebuild of (@@ (gnu packages commencement)
guile-final) and similar things.

It is also consistent with package name resolution on the command line:
a package that cannot be named cannot be replaced.

* guix/packages.scm (package-input-rewriting/spec)[rewrite]: When P is
hidden, return it as-is.
* tests/packages.scm ("package-input-rewriting/spec, hidden package"):
New test.
* doc/guix.texi (Defining Package Variants): Update.
(Package Transformation Options): Update '--with-input' example.
---
 doc/guix.texi      | 21 ++++++++++++---------
 guix/packages.scm  |  7 +++++--
 tests/packages.scm | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index 6671ba9305..6803512435 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -8331,10 +8331,13 @@ be replaced by name rather than by identity.
 @deffn {Scheme Procedure} package-input-rewriting/spec @var{replacements} [#:deep? #t]
 Return a procedure that, given a package, applies the given
 @var{replacements} to all the package graph, including implicit inputs
-unless @var{deep?} is false.  @var{replacements} is a list of
-spec/procedures pair; each spec is a package specification such as
-@code{"gcc"} or @code{"guile@@2"}, and each procedure takes a matching
-package and returns a replacement for that package.
+unless @var{deep?} is false.
+
+@var{replacements} is a list of spec/procedures pair; each spec is a
+package specification such as @code{"gcc"} or @code{"guile@@2"}, and
+each procedure takes a matching package and returns a replacement for
+that package.  Matching packages that have the @code{hidden?} property
+set are not replaced.
 @end deffn
 
 The example above could be rewritten this way:
@@ -12664,18 +12667,18 @@ or @code{guile@@1.8}.
 
 For instance, the following command builds Guix, but replaces its
 dependency on the current stable version of Guile with a dependency on
-the legacy version of Guile, @code{guile@@2.0}:
+the legacy version of Guile, @code{guile@@2.2}:
 
 @example
-guix build --with-input=guile=guile@@2.0 guix
+guix build --with-input=guile=guile@@2.2 guix
 @end example
 
 This is a recursive, deep replacement.  So in this example, both
 @code{guix} and its dependency @code{guile-json} (which also depends on
-@code{guile}) get rebuilt against @code{guile@@2.0}.
+@code{guile}) get rebuilt against @code{guile@@2.2}.
 
-This is implemented using the @code{package-input-rewriting} Scheme
-procedure (@pxref{Defining Packages, @code{package-input-rewriting}}).
+This is implemented using the @code{package-input-rewriting/spec} Scheme
+procedure (@pxref{Defining Packages, @code{package-input-rewriting/spec}}).
 
 @item --with-graft=@var{package}=@var{replacement}
 This is similar to @option{--with-input} but with an important difference:
diff --git a/guix/packages.scm b/guix/packages.scm
index cd61878bcc..11c066b292 100644
--- a/guix/packages.scm
+++ b/guix/packages.scm
@@ -1527,9 +1527,11 @@ (define (cut? p)
 (define* (package-input-rewriting/spec replacements #:key (deep? #t))
   "Return a procedure that, given a package, applies the given REPLACEMENTS to
 all the package graph, including implicit inputs unless DEEP? is false.
+
 REPLACEMENTS is a list of spec/procedures pair; each spec is a package
 specification such as \"gcc\" or \"guile <at> 2\", and each procedure takes a
-matching package and returns a replacement for that package."
+matching package and returns a replacement for that package.  Matching
+packages that have the 'hidden?' property set are not replaced."
   (define table
     (fold (lambda (replacement table)
             (match replacement
@@ -1557,7 +1559,8 @@ (define replacement-property
     (gensym " package-replacement"))
 
   (define (rewrite p)
-    (if (assq-ref (package-properties p) replacement-property)
+    (if (or (assq-ref (package-properties p) replacement-property)
+            (hidden-package? p))
         p
         (match (find-replacement p)
           (#f p)
diff --git a/tests/packages.scm b/tests/packages.scm
index f58c47817b..446be6ba52 100644
--- a/tests/packages.scm
+++ b/tests/packages.scm
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ;;; GNU Guix --- Functional package management for GNU
-;;; Copyright © 2012-2022 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
+;;; Copyright © 2012-2023 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2018 Jan (janneke) Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org>
 ;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer <at> gmail.com>
 ;;; Copyright © 2021 Maxime Devos <maximedevos <at> telenet.be>
@@ -1577,6 +1577,24 @@ (define right-system?
     (match (delete-duplicates pythons eq?)
       ((p) (eq? p (rewrite python))))))
 
+(test-assert "package-input-rewriting/spec, hidden package"
+  ;; Hidden packages are not subject to rewriting.
+  (let* ((python  (hidden-package python))
+         (p0      (dummy-package "chbouib"
+                    (build-system trivial-build-system)
+                    (inputs (list python))))
+         (rewrite (package-input-rewriting/spec
+                   `(("python" . ,(const sed)))
+                   #:deep? #t))
+         (p1      (rewrite p0))
+         (bag1    (package->bag p1))
+         (pythons (filter-map (match-lambda
+                                (("python" python) python)
+                                (_ #f))
+                              (bag-transitive-inputs bag1))))
+    (match (delete-duplicates pythons eq?)
+      ((p) (eq? p python)))))
+
 (test-equal "package-input-rewriting/spec, graft"
   (derivation-file-name (package-derivation %store sed))
 
-- 
2.39.1

Message #14 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josselin Poiret <dev <at> jpoiret.xyz>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me <at> tobias.gr>,
 Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>, Mathieu Othacehe <othacehe <at> gnu.org>,
 Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>,
 Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>, Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>
Subject: Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 0/2] '--with-input' & co. no longer replace
 hidden packages
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 21:15:51 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Ludo,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> This change makes things like:
>
>   guix build --with-input=guile=guile-next guix -n --no-grafts
>
> more useful and tractable.
>
> Low-level rewrites are still possible for packages not marked
> as hidden in 'commencement.scm', such as glibc:
>
>   guix build --with-latest=glibc hello -n
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ludo'.

LGTM, and tested fine.

Best,
-- 
Josselin Poiret

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #17 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>, 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:49:59 +0100

Hi Ludo,

On mer., 08 mars 2023 at 13:03, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> -               (let-values (((name version)
> -                             (package-name->name+version spec)))
> +               (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))

Out of curiosity, what is the difference?  Aside SRFI-71 instead of
SRFI-11?  Or why do you prefer SRFI-71 over -11?

Cheers,
simon

Message #20 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 17:46:16 +0100

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com> skribis:

> On mer., 08 mars 2023 at 13:03, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> -               (let-values (((name version)
>> -                             (package-name->name+version spec)))
>> +               (let ((name version (package-name->name+version spec)))
>
> Out of curiosity, what is the difference?  Aside SRFI-71 instead of
> SRFI-11?  Or why do you prefer SRFI-71 over -11?

There’s no semantic difference, but SRFI-71 looks clearer, doesn’t it?
:-)

See
<https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-01/msg00234.html>
for the original proposal.

Ludo’.

Message #23 received at 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Cc: 62047 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#62047] [PATCH 1/2] packages: Use SRFI-71 instead of SRFI-11.
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 18:44:14 +0100

Hi,

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 17:46, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> See
> <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-01/msg00234.html>
> for the original proposal.

Thanks!  I had overlooked this.

Cheers,
simon

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.