| Message ID | 20210916192331.29606-1-mail@muradm.net |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Make wayland-protocols dependency native-input. | expand |
Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2021, 22:23 +0300 schrieb muradm: > wayland-protocols is not runtime dependency and only build time > dependency for applications that directly using wayland. Guix does not distinguish between "build time" and run time dependencies. > Initially I tought that making wayland-protocols a native-inputs > dependency as it should, it would reduce number of dependants on > it. But it turns out other way around. With this patchset we are > fixing gtk+ to not advertise it as dependency in its .pc files, > and moving wayland-protocols to native-inputs where it should be. That's not what native-inputs are used for. native-inputs provide binaries that the host/build machine needs to run in order to compile a package. It doesn't seem to be the case that wayland-protocols is such a package, is it? > Patch provided for gtk+ also merged with upstream. > > Patchset prepared from core-updates-frozen. While it seems that > it will impact many other packages, actually this patch reduces > number of packages that touches wayland-protocols and probably > avoids it at runtime. But it still impacts a large number of packages in ways that could potentially break and haven't been tested, right? While reducing closure size is generally a good thing, I think we do need to be careful whenever "build time vs. run time" and native vs. non-native are confused. Regards
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2021, 22:23 +0300 schrieb muradm: >> wayland-protocols is not runtime dependency and only build time >> dependency for applications that directly using wayland. > Guix does not distinguish between "build time" and run time > dependencies. True, here issue could be related to miss wording, but same wording is used in the manual as well, so do I. >> Initially I tought that making wayland-protocols a >> native-inputs >> dependency as it should, it would reduce number of dependants >> on >> it. But it turns out other way around. With this patchset we >> are >> fixing gtk+ to not advertise it as dependency in its .pc files, >> and moving wayland-protocols to native-inputs where it should >> be. > That's not what native-inputs are used for. native-inputs > provide > binaries that the host/build machine needs to run in order to > compile a > package. It doesn't seem to be the case that wayland-protocols > is such > a package, is it? wayland-protocols is different package. It does not include any binaries only protocol specifications (some xml files), which are used for code generation. We could consider them as a kind of autoconf/bison like inputs, but tightly scoped for wayland needs, although they are not so and not binaries. >> Patch provided for gtk+ also merged with upstream. >> >> Patchset prepared from core-updates-frozen. While it seems that >> it will impact many other packages, actually this patch reduces >> number of packages that touches wayland-protocols and probably >> avoids it at runtime. > But it still impacts a large number of packages in ways that > could > potentially break and haven't been tested, right? Technically, this package does not change anything in terms of binary producing. wayland-protocols remains to be an input as it was before. I.e. wayland compositor, wayland application, wayland using library, application which uses wayland using library, binary output is not impacted. If binary output is the same, is there any thing else to test? There are two things which are being changed. First as you pointing out is the way Guix treats it, i.e. reducing closure, etc. Second is propagation of inputs. Currently (without this patch), since it is listed in propagated-inputs (and also advertised in .pc files), wayland-protocols as requirement, needlessly, getting pushed down then hierarchy. Let's take 4 cases that we have here (I do not pretend to be complete, of course, there are might be more levels/combinations, just attempting to illustrate current case in simple words/terms): 1. wayland compositor (weston, wlroots/sway, etc.) 2. wayland client application (grim, mpv, etc. applications directly interacting with wayland interfaces) 3. wayland client library (qt or gtk+ in this case, also directly interacts with wayland to abstract it for user applications) 4. user application of wayland client library (in this case some gtk+ based application) For 1 and 2, both types should have to specify wayland in inputs (or propagated-inputs), and wayland-protocols in native-inputs. One of purposes to have layer 3, is to abstract from 1 and 2. i.e. when I write gtk application, as user I should not be aware of where/how this application is going to run, via xorg or wayland. Then why I should be aware of wayland/wayland-protocols and make sure that it is provided as build input for my application? More over, if I will have some other unrelated package that depends on my gtk application (item 4 above), i still will see wayland-protocols among my inputs. Currently, thanks to Guix, it is getting resolved by having it listed in propagated-inputs. For the long run, it was also fixed in gtk, so that wayland-protocols is not going to be advertised in gtk's .pc files any more (https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3960 and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3961). I suppose that, initially wayland-protocols was listed in propagated-inputs for this same reason, because gtk was advertising it in .pc files. > While reducing > closure size is generally a good thing, I think we do need to be > careful whenever "build time vs. run time" and native vs. > non-native > are confused. I'm using terminology as per documentation :) may be it should be reworded in some other way to avoid confusion. 8.2.1 package reference: ‘native-inputs’ is typically used to list tools needed at build time, but not at run time... Thanks in advance, muradm
Hi Am Freitag, den 17.09.2021, 05:35 +0300 schrieb muradm: > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: > > > Hi, > > > > Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2021, 22:23 +0300 schrieb muradm: > > > wayland-protocols is not runtime dependency and only build time > > > dependency for applications that directly using wayland. > > Guix does not distinguish between "build time" and run time > > dependencies. > True, here issue could be related to miss wording, but same > wording is used in the manual as well, so do I. I'll respond to that in your quote below. > > > Initially I tought that making wayland-protocols a > > > native-inputs dependency as it should, it would reduce number of > > > dependants on it. But it turns out other way around. With this > > > patchset we are fixing gtk+ to not advertise it as dependency in > > > its .pc files, and moving wayland-protocols to native-inputs > > > where it should be. > > That's not what native-inputs are used for. native-inputs > > provide binaries that the host/build machine needs to run in order > > to compile a package. It doesn't seem to be the case that wayland- > > protocols is such a package, is it? > wayland-protocols is different package. It does not include any > binaries only protocol specifications (some xml files), which are > used for code generation. We could consider them as a kind of > autoconf/bison like inputs, but tightly scoped for wayland needs, > although they are not so and not binaries. And what kind of code is generated from them? I would assume it's target code. And since wayland-protocols is no tool to process those XML files, but the files themselves, I'd hazard a guess that it should rather be built for the target. While currently this appears to make no difference, there might well be a time in which those files differ for some two architectures, which then would cause problems in cross- compiling contexts were it a native input. > > > Patch provided for gtk+ also merged with upstream. > > > > > > Patchset prepared from core-updates-frozen. While it seems that > > > it will impact many other packages, actually this patch reduces > > > number of packages that touches wayland-protocols and probably > > > avoids it at runtime. > > But it still impacts a large number of packages in ways that > > could > > potentially break and haven't been tested, right? > Technically, this package does not change anything in terms of > binary producing. wayland-protocols remains to be an input as it was > before. I.e. wayland compositor, wayland application, wayland using > library, application which uses wayland using library, binary output > is not impacted. If binary output is the same, is there any thing > else to test? In that case I'd hazard a guess that it's fine, but the phrase "wayland-protocols remains to be an input" is perhaps a bit weird given the change to native-input. > There are two things which are being changed. First as you > pointing out is the way Guix treats it, i.e. reducing closure, etc. > Second is propagation of inputs. Currently (without this patch), > since it is listed in propagated-inputs (and also advertised in .pc > files), wayland-protocols as requirement, needlessly, getting pushed > down then hierarchy. We ought to move it from propagated-inputs to inputs and either (if we can) ignore pkg-config or patch the pkg-config files. W.r.t. pkg- config I do wonder whether Requires.private needs propagation, though, it normally should be just Requires. > Let's take 4 cases that we have here (I do not pretend to be > complete, of course, there are might be more levels/combinations, > just attempting to illustrate current case in simple words/terms): > > 1. wayland compositor (weston, wlroots/sway, etc.) > 2. wayland client application (grim, mpv, etc. applications > directly interacting with wayland interfaces) > 3. wayland client library (qt or gtk+ in this case, also directly > interacts with wayland to abstract it for user applications) > 4. user application of wayland client library (in this case some > gtk+ based application) > > For 1 and 2, both types should have to specify wayland in inputs > (or propagated-inputs), and wayland-protocols in native-inputs. Why? > One of purposes to have layer 3, is to abstract from 1 and 2. > i.e. when I write gtk application, as user I should not be aware > of where/how this application is going to run, via xorg or wayland. > Then why I should be aware of wayland/wayland-protocols and make > sure that it is provided as build input for my application? IIUC you don't need to be aware when gtk propagates the input? It's similar to how you still need an Xorg server to test your GTK application. > More over, if I will have some other unrelated package that > depends on my gtk application (item 4 above), i still will see > wayland-protocols among my inputs. > > Currently, thanks to Guix, it is getting resolved by having it > listed in propagated-inputs. > > For the long run, it was also fixed in gtk, so that > wayland-protocols is not going to be advertised in gtk's .pc files > any more (https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3960 > and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3961). Which is fine in and of its own, but not the right thing w.r.t. native- inputs. > I suppose that, initially wayland-protocols was listed in > propagated-inputs for this same reason, because gtk was > advertising it in .pc files. Probably. > > While reducing closure size is generally a good thing, I think we > > do need to be careful whenever "build time vs. run time" and native > > vs. non-native are confused. > I'm using terminology as per documentation :) may be it should be > reworded in some other way to avoid confusion. 8.2.1 package > reference: > > ‘native-inputs’ is typically used to list tools needed > at build time, but not at run time... You're quoting the manual out-of-context and (accidentally) misuse the word tool. > When cross-compiling, dependencies listed in ‘inputs’ are > built for the _target_ architecture; conversely, > dependencies listed in ‘native-inputs’ are built for the > architecture of the _build_ machine. This is the distinction to make here. "Typically used to list tools" here means that the package provides a tool (i.e. a binary) that you invoke at some point of your recipe. This can be a compiler like GCC, a tool to create Makefiles like automake, or an X server to launch tests in. The only thing in that regard when talking about wayland would be the wayland-scanner tool provided by the wayland package. Notice the contrast to what you said before with wayland being an input and wayland-protocols being a native one. If you need wayland-scanner for you build, it should be a native-input (as well as an input, probably). If this does become a problem later on, a bin/lib split for wayland might make sense. Regards
Regardless of comments below, I understand what you are trying to point out. It is fine with me to use 'inputs instead of 'native-inputs, as the final result won't change. Just in my opinion, what I found it that, it need/should not be in 'propagated-inputs. I will be updating the patch to make sure that wayland-protocols are listed among 'inputs without propagating. It is also fine with me to close this issue and don't do anything if you say that it is unnecessary, I don't mind :) Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: > Hi > > Am Freitag, den 17.09.2021, 05:35 +0300 schrieb muradm: >> Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2021, 22:23 +0300 schrieb muradm: >> > > wayland-protocols is not runtime dependency and only build >> > > time >> > > dependency for applications that directly using wayland. >> > Guix does not distinguish between "build time" and run time >> > dependencies. >> True, here issue could be related to miss wording, but same >> wording is used in the manual as well, so do I. > I'll respond to that in your quote below. > >> > > Initially I tought that making wayland-protocols a >> > > native-inputs dependency as it should, it would reduce >> > > number of >> > > dependants on it. But it turns out other way around. With >> > > this >> > > patchset we are fixing gtk+ to not advertise it as >> > > dependency in >> > > its .pc files, and moving wayland-protocols to >> > > native-inputs >> > > where it should be. >> > That's not what native-inputs are used for. native-inputs >> > provide binaries that the host/build machine needs to run in >> > order >> > to compile a package. It doesn't seem to be the case that >> > wayland- >> > protocols is such a package, is it? >> wayland-protocols is different package. It does not include any >> binaries only protocol specifications (some xml files), which >> are >> used for code generation. We could consider them as a kind of >> autoconf/bison like inputs, but tightly scoped for wayland >> needs, >> although they are not so and not binaries. > And what kind of code is generated from them? I would assume > it's > target code. And since wayland-protocols is no tool to process > those > XML files, but the files themselves, I'd hazard a guess that it > should > rather be built for the target. While currently this appears to > make > no difference, there might well be a time in which those files > differ > for some two architectures, which then would cause problems in > cross- > compiling contexts were it a native input. As with any other kind of protocol, you can implement platform specific encoder/decoder, but protocol remains the same. Suppose, connecting from arm, to x86 or vice versa in the context of wayland, should protocol change? As you mentioned wayland-scanner below, that would be its task to interpret protocol specification in platform specific way. So I would speculate that in future these specifications would remain the same. Otherwise, that would defeat the point of having protocol. >> > > Patch provided for gtk+ also merged with upstream. >> > > >> > > Patchset prepared from core-updates-frozen. While it seems >> > > that >> > > it will impact many other packages, actually this patch >> > > reduces >> > > number of packages that touches wayland-protocols and >> > > probably >> > > avoids it at runtime. >> > But it still impacts a large number of packages in ways that >> > could >> > potentially break and haven't been tested, right? >> Technically, this package does not change anything in terms of >> binary producing. wayland-protocols remains to be an input as >> it was >> before. I.e. wayland compositor, wayland application, wayland >> using >> library, application which uses wayland using library, binary >> output >> is not impacted. If binary output is the same, is there any >> thing >> else to test? > In that case I'd hazard a guess that it's fine, but the phrase > "wayland-protocols remains to be an input" is perhaps a bit > weird given > the change to native-input. Probably, I'd better put single quote in front of the word when it means symbol, and don't put one when it is human word :) in this context it was meaning literal input (regardless of type, be it 'inputs, 'native-inputs or 'propagated-inputs). >> There are two things which are being changed. First as you >> pointing out is the way Guix treats it, i.e. reducing closure, >> etc. >> Second is propagation of inputs. Currently (without this >> patch), >> since it is listed in propagated-inputs (and also advertised in >> .pc >> files), wayland-protocols as requirement, needlessly, getting >> pushed >> down then hierarchy. > We ought to move it from propagated-inputs to inputs and either > (if we > can) ignore pkg-config or patch the pkg-config files. W.r.t. > pkg- > config I do wonder whether Requires.private needs propagation, > though, > it normally should be just Requires. I suppose, it is not in Guix's hands to control how pkg-config files are authored by software owners and/or interpreted by build tools. What Guix's can do, it to fix what is already there. This patch illustrates this point. >> Let's take 4 cases that we have here (I do not pretend to be >> complete, of course, there are might be more >> levels/combinations, >> just attempting to illustrate current case in simple >> words/terms): >> >> 1. wayland compositor (weston, wlroots/sway, etc.) >> 2. wayland client application (grim, mpv, etc. applications >> directly interacting with wayland interfaces) >> 3. wayland client library (qt or gtk+ in this case, also >> directly >> interacts with wayland to abstract it for user applications) >> 4. user application of wayland client library (in this case >> some >> gtk+ based application) >> >> For 1 and 2, both types should have to specify wayland in >> inputs >> (or propagated-inputs), and wayland-protocols in native-inputs. > Why? One implements the protocol, the other uses it. I.e. both need stubs generated from specification to agree. Which is not the case for anything beyond 4. Otherwise, we would defeat whole point of introducing abstractions. >> One of purposes to have layer 3, is to abstract from 1 and 2. >> i.e. when I write gtk application, as user I should not be >> aware >> of where/how this application is going to run, via xorg or >> wayland. >> Then why I should be aware of wayland/wayland-protocols and >> make >> sure that it is provided as build input for my application? > IIUC you don't need to be aware when gtk propagates the input? > It's > similar to how you still need an Xorg server to test your GTK > application. From application using gtk stand point, it does not matter what is behind gtk. As you point out, of course me, as user launching application, I have to provide some environment which could be either xorg or wayland. But application's source should not be aware of that fact. >> More over, if I will have some other unrelated package that >> depends on my gtk application (item 4 above), i still will see >> wayland-protocols among my inputs. >> >> Currently, thanks to Guix, it is getting resolved by having it >> listed in propagated-inputs. >> >> For the long run, it was also fixed in gtk, so that >> wayland-protocols is not going to be advertised in gtk's .pc >> files >> any more >> (https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3960 >> and https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gtk/-/merge_requests/3961). > Which is fine in and of its own, but not the right thing w.r.t. > native- > inputs. > >> I suppose that, initially wayland-protocols was listed in >> propagated-inputs for this same reason, because gtk was >> advertising it in .pc files. > Probably. > >> > While reducing closure size is generally a good thing, I >> > think we >> > do need to be careful whenever "build time vs. run time" and >> > native >> > vs. non-native are confused. >> I'm using terminology as per documentation :) may be it should >> be >> reworded in some other way to avoid confusion. 8.2.1 package >> reference: >> >> ‘native-inputs’ is typically used to list tools >> needed >> at build time, but not at run time... > You're quoting the manual out-of-context and (accidentally) > misuse the > word tool. > >> When cross-compiling, dependencies listed in ‘inputs’ >> are >> built for the _target_ architecture; conversely, >> dependencies listed in ‘native-inputs’ are built for >> the >> architecture of the _build_ machine. > This is the distinction to make here. "Typically used to list > tools" > here means that the package provides a tool (i.e. a binary) that > you > invoke at some point of your recipe. This can be a compiler > like GCC, > a tool to create Makefiles like automake, or an X server to > launch > tests in. The only thing in that regard when talking about > wayland > would be the wayland-scanner tool provided by the wayland > package. > > Notice the contrast to what you said before with wayland being > an input > and wayland-protocols being a native one. If you need > wayland-scanner > for you build, it should be a native-input (as well as an input, > probably). If this does become a problem later on, a bin/lib > split for > wayland might make sense. I understand what you are saying, however as far as I am aware, people being or not on the same page, tend to use simpler definitions for referencing something. I was assuming that in this mailing list we are on the same page, and free to choose to how reference things. I suppose it would be fine to say "not runtime dependency", "build time" or "dependency for host platform when crosscompiling" in reference to 'native-inputs. For instance when explaining this to one who sees Guix for the first time, I would say "run time" for 'inputs and "build time" for 'native-inputs, not mentioning "crosscompiling" at all on day one. Any way, I beleive it is more like phylosophical subject, than technical. > Regards
Hi, Am Freitag, den 17.09.2021, 11:20 +0300 schrieb muradm: > Regardless of comments below, I understand what you are trying to > point out. It is fine with me to use 'inputs instead of 'native- > inputs, as the final result won't change. Just in my opinion, what I > found it that, it need/should not be in 'propagated-inputs. I will be > updating the patch to make sure that wayland-protocols are listed > among 'inputs without propagating. It is also fine with me to close > this issue and don't do anything if you say that it is unnecessary, I > don't mind :) I agree that reducing propagated-inputs is a good thing, it should just be moved to inputs. When you update the patch, please do use the upstream version of gtk3-wayland-protocols-dependency.patch. > Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: > > > And what kind of code is generated from them? I would assume > > it's target code. And since wayland-protocols is no tool to > > process those XML files, but the files themselves, I'd hazard a > > guess that it should rather be built for the target. While > > currently this appears to make no difference, there might well be a > > time in which those files differ for some two architectures, which > > then would cause problems in cross-compiling contexts were it a > > native input. > As with any other kind of protocol, you can implement platform > specific encoder/decoder, but protocol remains the same. Suppose, > connecting from arm, to x86 or vice versa in the context of wayland, > should protocol change? As you mentioned wayland-scanner below, that > would be its task to interpret protocol specification in platform > specific way. So I would speculate that in future these > specifications would remain the same. > Otherwise, that would defeat the point of having protocol. You are probably correct in that those files will likely stay the same for all platforms, but there could be scenarios where for the sake of performance or whatever else you might want to have some protocol extensions. Platforms that don't support those then wouldn't ship said protocol extensions. > > In that case I'd hazard a guess that it's fine, but the phrase > > "wayland-protocols remains to be an input" is perhaps a bit > > weird given the change to native-input. > Probably, I'd better put single quote in front of the word when it > means symbol, and don't put one when it is human word :) in this > context it was meaning literal input (regardless of type, be it > 'inputs, 'native-inputs or 'propagated-inputs). In my personal experience people don't pronounce quotes, so it's better to be explicit rather than implicit. > > > There are two things which are being changed. First as you > > > pointing out is the way Guix treats it, i.e. reducing closure, > > > etc. Second is propagation of inputs. Currently (without this > > > patch), since it is listed in propagated-inputs (and also > > > advertised in .pc files), wayland-protocols as requirement, > > > needlessly, getting pushed down then hierarchy. > > We ought to move it from propagated-inputs to inputs and either > > (if we can) ignore pkg-config or patch the pkg-config > > files. W.r.t. pkg-config I do wonder whether Requires.private > > needs propagation, though, it normally should be just Requires. > I suppose, it is not in Guix's hands to control how pkg-config > files are authored by software owners and/or interpreted by build > tools. > What Guix's can do, it to fix what is already there. This patch > illustrates this point. The point of authoring is a weird one when Guix can absolutely still patch the file *and* you supplied a patch that was accepted upstream. A patch, which mind you is arguably more correct than the one you've supplied for Guix, patching the build files themselves rather than generated sources. For other packages with similar issues without an upstream fix, you could on the other hand simply substitute* the .pc file. > > > Let's take 4 cases that we have here (I do not pretend to be > > > complete, of course, there are might be more levels/combinations, > > > just attempting to illustrate current case in > > > simple words/terms): > > > > > > 1. wayland compositor (weston, wlroots/sway, etc.) > > > 2. wayland client application (grim, mpv, etc. applications > > > directly interacting with wayland interfaces) > > > 3. wayland client library (qt or gtk+ in this case, also > > > directly > > > interacts with wayland to abstract it for user applications) > > > 4. user application of wayland client library (in this case > > > some > > > gtk+ based application) > > > > > > For 1 and 2, both types should have to specify wayland in > > > inputs (or propagated-inputs), and wayland-protocols in native- > > > inputs. > > Why? > One implements the protocol, the other uses it. I.e. both need > stubs generated from specification to agree. Which is not the case > for anything beyond 4. Otherwise, we would defeat whole point of > introducing abstractions. This still doesn't explain the *native*-inputs assertion. > > > One of purposes to have layer 3, is to abstract from 1 and 2. > > > i.e. when I write gtk application, as user I should not be > > > aware of where/how this application is going to run, via xorg or > > > wayland. Then why I should be aware of wayland/wayland-protocols > > > and make sure that it is provided as build input for my > > > application? > > IIUC you don't need to be aware when gtk propagates the input? > > It's similar to how you still need an Xorg server to test your GTK > > application. > From application using gtk stand point, it does not matter what is > behind gtk. As you point out, of course me, as user launching > application, I have to provide some environment which could be > either xorg or wayland. But application's source should not be > aware of that fact. This and that are different matters. Application source code continues to be blissfully unaware of the fact, but the toolchains to build your application are not. Think of it like this: When you use pkg-config (or older -config binaries), they spit out a number of compiler and linker flags to supply to gcc or ld. You as the application programmer are typically unaware of those flags and their values, especially if you turn down the verbosity of your build system, but that doesn't mean they're not supplied. > [...] > > > When cross-compiling, dependencies listed in ‘inputs’ > > > are built for the _target_ architecture; conversely, > > > dependencies listed in ‘native-inputs’ are built for > > > the architecture of the _build_ machine. > > This is the distinction to make here. "Typically used to list > > tools" here means that the package provides a tool (i.e. a binary) > > that you invoke at some point of your recipe. This can be a > > compiler like GCC, a tool to create Makefiles like automake, or an > > X server to launch tests in. The only thing in that regard when > > talking about wayland would be the wayland-scanner tool provided by > > the wayland package. > > > > Notice the contrast to what you said before with wayland being > > an input and wayland-protocols being a native one. If you need > > wayland-scanner for you build, it should be a native-input (as well > > as an input, probably). If this does become a problem later on, a > > bin/lib split for wayland might make sense. > I understand what you are saying, however as far as I am aware, > people being or not on the same page, tend to use simpler definitions > for referencing something. I was assuming that in this mailing list > we are on the same page, and free to choose to how reference things. > I suppose it would be fine to say "not runtime dependency", "build > time" or "dependency for host platform when crosscompiling" in > reference to 'native-inputs. For instance when explaining this to one > who sees Guix for the first time, I would say "run time" for 'inputs > and "build time" for 'native-inputs, not mentioning "crosscompiling" > at all on day one. > Any way, I believe it is more like philosophical subject, than > technical. I think it is important to acknowledge that people come from different backgrounds, and knowing that to do our best to curb misunderstandings. Comparing Guix' package definitions to other package managers makes it obvious as to why that is the case. Let me pick Gentoo ebuilds as an example (it's quicker to explain than whatever Debian has). There are five (as opposed to three in Guix) kinds of dependencies: - DEPEND, aka build-time dependencies, - RDEPEND, aka run-time dependencies, - BDEPEND, aka native build-time dependencies, - IDEPEND, aka native install-time dependenices, and - PDEPEND, aka what the fuck, I think I just introduced a cycle somewhere. When you say "build-time dependencies go into native inputs", someone with a shallow understanding might think that *all* build time dependencies are native inputs, when in fact only build time tools (i.e. BDEPEND in Gentoo parlance) would go there. In other systems, it might be acceptable to have a package depend on some other package without said dependency being present at build time. Consider a shell script that wraps youtube-dl. Since youtube-dl exists at some point between installation and first use, your shell script works™ whether or not youtube-dl is present at build. Some packages in Guix do work that way, though it's a pretty rare occurrence. GStreamer is one with a legitimate excuse, for example. Other than that, *all* "dependencies" (actually inputs) are present at build time, so it makes no sense to distinguish between build time and run time. Guix knows which packages it can delete from the store by tracking references. What Guix needs to distinguish is whether the package is invoked at build time (native-inputs) or whether it needs to be installed alongside the package being built (propagated-inputs) against none of the two (regular inputs). So the next time you try to explain things to a first-timer, be clear that native-inputs is for tools like compilers, linkers, code generators *invoked* at build time. It will be less confusing to learn it correctly the first time round rather than having to argue in the mailing lists when submitting some patch. I understand that keeping one piece of extra information in mind can be hard at times and the temptation to simplify is always there, but in the long term no one benefits from oversimplification. Sorry for making you read this huge wall of text and happy hacking :)
Apart of comments, I updated the patch, in the way that for now it only touches gtk+ package. There are two suspect packages remain who propagate, is wlroots, and enlightenment. enlightenment is most likely to remain leaf package, wlroots is different, we may look at it later when updating it. Thanks in advance, muradm Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes: > Hi, > > Am Freitag, den 17.09.2021, 11:20 +0300 schrieb muradm: >> Regardless of comments below, I understand what you are trying >> to >> point out. It is fine with me to use 'inputs instead of >> 'native- >> inputs, as the final result won't change. Just in my opinion, >> what I >> found it that, it need/should not be in 'propagated-inputs. I >> will be >> updating the patch to make sure that wayland-protocols are >> listed >> among 'inputs without propagating. It is also fine with me to >> close >> this issue and don't do anything if you say that it is >> unnecessary, I >> don't mind :) > I agree that reducing propagated-inputs is a good thing, it > should just > be moved to inputs. When you update the patch, please do use > the > upstream version of gtk3-wayland-protocols-dependency.patch. I suppose it is impossible, upstream patches are for source in git, gtk+ package is being built from post-processed source tarball. When patching upstream target is configure.ac and meson.build, when patching source tarball, configure script it self. [...] >> As with any other kind of protocol, you can implement platform >> specific encoder/decoder, but protocol remains the same. >> Suppose, >> connecting from arm, to x86 or vice versa in the context of >> wayland, >> should protocol change? As you mentioned wayland-scanner below, >> that >> would be its task to interpret protocol specification in >> platform >> specific way. So I would speculate that in future these >> specifications would remain the same. >> Otherwise, that would defeat the point of having protocol. > You are probably correct in that those files will likely stay > the same > for all platforms, but there could be scenarios where for the > sake of > performance or whatever else you might want to have some > protocol > extensions. Platforms that don't support those then wouldn't > ship said > protocol extensions. Btw, gtk+'s native-inputs are interesting tho.. :) [...] >> > > There are two things which are being changed. First as you >> > > pointing out is the way Guix treats it, i.e. reducing >> > > closure, >> > > etc. Second is propagation of inputs. Currently (without >> > > this >> > > patch), since it is listed in propagated-inputs (and also >> > > advertised in .pc files), wayland-protocols as requirement, >> > > needlessly, getting pushed down then hierarchy. >> > We ought to move it from propagated-inputs to inputs and >> > either >> > (if we can) ignore pkg-config or patch the pkg-config >> > files. W.r.t. pkg-config I do wonder whether >> > Requires.private >> > needs propagation, though, it normally should be just >> > Requires. >> I suppose, it is not in Guix's hands to control how pkg-config >> files are authored by software owners and/or interpreted by >> build >> tools. >> What Guix's can do, it to fix what is already there. This patch >> illustrates this point. > The point of authoring is a weird one when Guix can absolutely > still > patch the file *and* you supplied a patch that was accepted > upstream. > A patch, which mind you is arguably more correct than the one > you've > supplied for Guix, patching the build files themselves rather > than > generated sources. > > For other packages with similar issues without an upstream fix, > you > could on the other hand simply substitute* the .pc file. Please, see reason mentioned above, on why patch is different. >> > > Let's take 4 cases that we have here (I do not pretend to >> > > be >> > > complete, of course, there are might be more >> > > levels/combinations, >> > > just attempting to illustrate current case in >> > > simple words/terms): >> > > >> > > 1. wayland compositor (weston, wlroots/sway, etc.) >> > > 2. wayland client application (grim, mpv, etc. applications >> > > directly interacting with wayland interfaces) >> > > 3. wayland client library (qt or gtk+ in this case, also >> > > directly >> > > interacts with wayland to abstract it for user >> > > applications) >> > > 4. user application of wayland client library (in this case >> > > some >> > > gtk+ based application) >> > > >> > > For 1 and 2, both types should have to specify wayland in >> > > inputs (or propagated-inputs), and wayland-protocols in >> > > native- >> > > inputs. >> > Why? >> One implements the protocol, the other uses it. I.e. both need >> stubs generated from specification to agree. Which is not the >> case >> for anything beyond 4. Otherwise, we would defeat whole point >> of >> introducing abstractions. > This still doesn't explain the *native*-inputs assertion. As you point out below: "... the package is invoked at build time (native-inputs) ...", in cases 1, 2 and 3 above, wayland-protocols package is needed once, when 1, 2 or 3 target is being built. No other time wayland-protocols package is needed. This is the reason why I decided initially to keep it in (native-inputs), because definition of (native-inputs) as you explaining in this conversation and as explained in Guix manual, best matches with nature of wayland-protocols, at least in my understanding :) >> > > One of purposes to have layer 3, is to abstract from 1 and >> > > 2. >> > > i.e. when I write gtk application, as user I should not be >> > > aware of where/how this application is going to run, via >> > > xorg or >> > > wayland. Then why I should be aware of >> > > wayland/wayland-protocols >> > > and make sure that it is provided as build input for my >> > > application? >> > IIUC you don't need to be aware when gtk propagates the >> > input? >> > It's similar to how you still need an Xorg server to test >> > your GTK >> > application. >> From application using gtk stand point, it does not matter what >> is >> behind gtk. As you point out, of course me, as user launching >> application, I have to provide some environment which could be >> either xorg or wayland. But application's source should not be >> aware of that fact. > This and that are different matters. Application source code > continues > to be blissfully unaware of the fact, but the toolchains to > build your > application are not. Think of it like this: When you use > pkg-config > (or older -config binaries), they spit out a number of compiler > and > linker flags to supply to gcc or ld. You as the application > programmer > are typically unaware of those flags and their values, > especially if > you turn down the verbosity of your build system, but that > doesn't mean > they're not supplied. I don't know about typical programmer, for me as programmer, when I write, I do look at every dependency and how it is included. This case just make uncomfortable when there is dependency which is required but unused. [...] >> I understand what you are saying, however as far as I am aware, >> people being or not on the same page, tend to use simpler >> definitions >> for referencing something. I was assuming that in this mailing >> list >> we are on the same page, and free to choose to how reference >> things. >> I suppose it would be fine to say "not runtime dependency", >> "build >> time" or "dependency for host platform when crosscompiling" in >> reference to 'native-inputs. For instance when explaining this >> to one >> who sees Guix for the first time, I would say "run time" for >> 'inputs >> and "build time" for 'native-inputs, not mentioning >> "crosscompiling" >> at all on day one. >> Any way, I believe it is more like philosophical subject, than >> technical. > I think it is important to acknowledge that people come from > different > backgrounds, and knowing that to do our best to curb > misunderstandings. > Comparing Guix' package definitions to other package managers > makes it > obvious as to why that is the case. Let me pick Gentoo ebuilds > as an > example (it's quicker to explain than whatever Debian has). > There are five (as opposed to three in Guix) kinds of > dependencies: > - DEPEND, aka build-time dependencies, > - RDEPEND, aka run-time dependencies, > - BDEPEND, aka native build-time dependencies, > - IDEPEND, aka native install-time dependenices, and > - PDEPEND, aka what the fuck, I think I just introduced a cycle > somewhere. > When you say "build-time dependencies go into native inputs", > someone > with a shallow understanding might think that *all* build time > dependencies are native inputs, when in fact only build time > tools > (i.e. BDEPEND in Gentoo parlance) would go there. > > In other systems, it might be acceptable to have a package > depend on > some other package without said dependency being present at > build time. > Consider a shell script that wraps youtube-dl. Since youtube-dl > exists > at some point between installation and first use, your shell > script > works™ whether or not youtube-dl is present at build. Some > packages in > Guix do work that way, though it's a pretty rare occurrence. > GStreamer > is one with a legitimate excuse, for example. Other than that, > *all* > "dependencies" (actually inputs) are present at build time, so > it makes > no sense to distinguish between build time and run time. Guix > knows > which packages it can delete from the store by tracking > references. > What Guix needs to distinguish is whether the package is invoked > at > build time (native-inputs) or whether it needs to be installed > alongside the package being built (propagated-inputs) against > none of > the two (regular inputs). IMHO, this kind of judgement arises from one's experience, demands, intuition etc. I.e. personal perception. One could just make it working somehow, another could have experience in what is being done, another could stress things to the limits. If it would be up to me, I would put everything into (native-inputs) and then gradually move things to (inputs) and (propagated-inputs) as needed (of course I'm not doing that, I just want to show the point, that everybody's judgement is not the same :)). From what you are saying, if it is really requires such level of control, I suppose that there should be a chapter in a guide on how to measure dependencies, with examples and reasoning behind them, just like you mentioned GStreamer case, probably updated with time from discussions like this. This could help to bring people more or less on the same page. > So the next time you try to explain things to a first-timer, be > clear > that native-inputs is for tools like compilers, linkers, code > generators *invoked* at build time. It will be less confusing > to learn > it correctly the first time round rather than having to argue in > the > mailing lists when submitting some patch. I understand that > keeping > one piece of extra information in mind can be hard at times and > the > temptation to simplify is always there, but in the long term no > one > benefits from oversimplification. IMHO, for one it is unfair and/or unwise to treat everybody in the same way, there could be one who barely saw compiler (if at all), and one who did kernel development on embedded hardware :) I believe that, especially with new comers, it is always depends on case by case basis. > Sorry for making you read this huge wall of text and happy > hacking :) No issue, always good for practice, and history :)
Hi, Am Freitag, den 17.09.2021, 17:11 +0300 schrieb muradm: > [...] > I suppose it is impossible, upstream patches are for source in > git, gtk+ package is being built from post-processed source tarball. > When patching upstream target is configure.ac and meson.build, when > patching source tarball, configure script it self. You can simply delete the generated configure file and Guix will bootstrap it again. So yes, you should be able to apply the upstream patch. > [...] > Btw, gtk+'s native-inputs are interesting tho.. :) In which way? > [...] > > This still doesn't explain the *native*-inputs assertion. > As you point out below: "... the package is invoked at build time > (native-inputs) ...", in cases 1, 2 and 3 above, wayland-protocols > package is needed once, when 1, 2 or 3 target is being built. No > other time wayland-protocols package is needed. This is the reason > why I decided initially to keep it in (native-inputs), because > definition of (native-inputs) as you explaining in this conversation > and as explained in Guix manual, best matches with nature of > wayland-protocols, at least in my understanding :) This might be a bit pedantic, but *invoking* and *needing* are different verbs, particularly in computing. So no, you're just confused and trying to justify your confusion. > [...] > > In other systems, it might be acceptable to have a package > > depend on some other package without said dependency being present > > at build time. Consider a shell script that wraps youtube- > > dl. Since youtube-dl exists at some point between installation and > > first use, your shell script works™ whether or not youtube-dl is > > present at build. Some packages in Guix do work that way, though > > it's a pretty rare occurrence. GStreamer is one with a legitimate > > excuse, for example. Other than that, *all* "dependencies" > > (actually inputs) are present at build time, so it makes > > no sense to distinguish between build time and run time. Guix > > knows which packages it can delete from the store by tracking > > references. What Guix needs to distinguish is whether the package > > is invoked at build time (native-inputs) or whether it needs to be > > installed alongside the package being built (propagated-inputs) > > against none of the two (regular inputs). > IMHO, this kind of judgement arises from one's experience, > demands, intuition etc. I.e. personal perception. One could just make > it working somehow, another could have experience in what is being > done, another could stress things to the limits. If it would be up to > me, I would put everything into (native-inputs) and then gradually > move things to (inputs) and (propagated-inputs) as needed (of course > I'm not doing that, I just want to show the point, that everybody's > judgement is not the same :)). This reasoning is dangerously close to the "From my point of view" line from a prequel to a famous space opera. While yes, you do get an understanding of what belongs where over time, the manual does provide guidelines that prohibit the "everything is native" approach. > From what you are saying, if it is really requires such level of > control, I suppose that there should be a chapter in a guide on how > to measure dependencies, with examples and reasoning behind them, > just like you mentioned GStreamer case, probably updated with time > from discussions like this. This could help to bring people more or > less on the same page. GStreamer doesn't even concern the native-input vs. input dispute. It concerns the having something as an input vs. not having it. > > So the next time you try to explain things to a first-timer, be > > clear that native-inputs is for tools like compilers, linkers, code > > generators *invoked* at build time. It will be less confusing > > to learn it correctly the first time round rather than having to > > argue in the mailing lists when submitting some patch. I > > understand that keeping one piece of extra information in mind can > > be hard at times and the temptation to simplify is always there, > > but in the long term no one benefits from oversimplification. > IMHO, for one it is unfair and/or unwise to treat everybody in the > same way, there could be one who barely saw compiler (if at all), > and one who did kernel development on embedded hardware :) I believe > that, especially with new comers, it is always depends on case by > case basis. I think when it comes to the point that you're packaging software for any distro, you ought to be able to distinguish tools from things that are not tools. While I'm pretty sure that there are some entities out there claiming that a bunch of XML files are a tool, I for one don't think wayland-protocols does that. Regards
Hi, Removing a propagated input from gtk (by moving it to native-inputs) sounds good, but I don't see the point of the inputs->native-inputs changes. Now I see there is a revised patch at <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/50627#8> (albeit named v1 instead of v2). Some comments on the new patch: > diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/gtk3-wayland-protocols-dependency.patch b/gnu/packages/patches/gtk3-wayland-protocols-dependency.patch > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000..03196713bc > --- /dev/null > +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/gtk3-wayland-protocols-dependency.patch > @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ > +diff --git a/configure b/configure > +index edd41ad..cb36877 100755 > +--- a/configure > ++++ b/configure > [...] 'configure' is generated stuff, not source code, so now the result of "guix build --source" is missing some source code (i.e., the revisions to configure.ac). Proposal: modify configure.ac instead, add autotools inputs and delete 'configure' such that Guix will automatically run autoreconf, see <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2022-04/msg00009.html>. Greetings, Maxime