[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#38100: closed ('--with-input', '--with-git-url' etc. cause unnecessa

From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: bug#38100: closed ('--with-input', '--with-git-url' etc. cause unnecessary rebuilds)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 21:47:02 +0000

Your message dated Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:46:22 +0200
with message-id <87sgb2dhap.fsf@inria.fr>
and subject line Re: bug#38100: ‘--with-input’ causes unintended rebuilds
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #38100,
regarding '--with-input', '--with-git-url' etc. cause unnecessary rebuilds
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact

38100: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=38100
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: ‘--with-input’ causes unintended rebuilds Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 13:35:15 +0100 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)

Consider this example:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix build glib -nd
$ guix build glib --with-input=inkscape=libreoffice -nd
$ guix describe
Generacio 114   Nov 02 2019 11:32:51    (nuna)
  guix ab1c063
    repository URL: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guix.git
    branch: master
    commit: ab1c063ab08e069fbe62919828fa634a2e222bbf
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Since GLib does not depend on Inkscape, the ‘--with-input’ flag should
have no effect: we should get the same glib derivation.  However, we’re

If we diff the ‘glibc-2.60.6-guile-builder’ files of each derivation, we
see that the second one has a duplicate entry:

  (define %build-inputs
      ("python" . "/gnu/store/78w7y0lxar70j512iqw8x3nimzj10yga-python-3.7.4")
      ("python" . "/gnu/store/78w7y0lxar70j512iqw8x3nimzj10yga-python-3.7.4")

whereas the first one doesn’t have this duplicate entry.  IOW, the two
derivations are functionally equivalent but are not bit-identical.

Indeed, evaluating:

   (package->bag ((package-input-rewriting '()) glib)))

shows that we have two “python” packages there that are not ‘eq?’.

To be continued…


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#38100: ‘--with-input’ causes unintended rebuilds Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2020 23:46:22 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Hey there!

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr> skribis:
>> Indeed, evaluating:
>>   (bag-transitive-inputs
>>    (package->bag ((package-input-rewriting '()) glib)))
>> shows that we have two “python” packages there that are not ‘eq?’.
> The problem is that ‘glib’ depends on ‘python-libxml2’, which uses
> ‘python-build-system’ and thus has ‘python’ as an implicit input.
> ‘package-input-rewriting’ doesn’t touch implicit inputs so it leaves
> that implicit ‘python’ untouched.
> Since ‘transitive-inputs’ (used by ‘bag-transitive-inputs’) uses pointer
> equality, we end up with two “python” packages that are not ‘eq?’ but
> are functionally equivalent: the one produced by
> ‘package-input-rewriting’, and the implicit dependency of
> ‘python-libxml2’.  QED.
> (This is essentially the same as <https://bugs.gnu.org/30155>.)

Good news, this is fixed by 2bf6f962b91123b0474c0f7123cd17efe7f09a66,
which introduces package rewriting including implicit inputs!

Before getting there, this issue did get on my nerves for a while.  Here
are several ways to address this issue that I thought of:

  1. Have ‘package-input-rewriting/spec’ traverse implicit inputs, at
     least optionally.  We wouldn’t end up with an
     equivalent-but-not-eq? ‘python’ in the example above.  It does
     change the semantics though, and it may be nice to keep a “shallow”
     replacement option.  That’s what
     2bf6f962b91123b0474c0f7123cd17efe7f09a66 does.

  2. Do (delete-duplicates input-drvs) in ‘bag->derivation’.  That seems
     wise, but it’s unfortunately impossible on ‘master’ because of

  3. ‘package-input-rewriting/spec’ preserves eq?-ness for packages not
     transformed; in the example above, the transformation result would
     be eq? to ‘glib’ because ‘--with-input=libreoffice=inkscape’ had no
     effect.  Tricky to implement efficiently, perhaps not worth it.

I think #2 might still be worth investigating, but it may have
undesirable implications too.  #3 is hardly doable.

All in all, I’m glad that #1 addresses the issue, because it’s also
something we wanted anyway.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]