package transformations not honored working from a manifest

> I was trying to simplify the Jami packaging tooling using the latest

> recursive '--with-source' transformation, like so (in a Makefile):

>

> define guix-pack-command

> guix pack -C xz -f deb -f extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-manifest.scm -v3 \

> --with-source=libjami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \

> --with-patch=libjami=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/patches/jami-disable-integration-tests.patch \

> --with-source=jami@$(RELEASE_VERSION)=$(RELEASE_TARBALL_FILENAME) \

> -S /usr/bin/jami=bin/jami \

> -S /usr/share/applications/jami.desktop=share/applications/jami.desktop \

> -S /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg=share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/jami.svg \

> -S /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png=share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/jami.png \

> -S /usr/share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml=share/metainfo/jami.appdata.xml \

> --postinst-file=extras/packaging/gnu-linux/guix/guix-pack-deb.postinst

> endef

> But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for

> the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the

> guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest.

> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any

> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,

> a file, a manifest or another means.

>> But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for

>> the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the

>> guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest.

>

> Indeed, that’s expected.

>

>> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any

>> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,

>> a file, a manifest or another means.

>

> I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.

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

>

> [...]

>

>>> But noticed that --with-source and --with-patch were not effective for

>>> the jami-with-certs customized package provided by the

>>> guix-pack-manifest.scm manifest.

>>

>> Indeed, that’s expected.

>>

>>> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any

>>> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,

>>> a file, a manifest or another means.

>>

>> I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.

>

> Perhaps I do not have the full picture in my head, but if someone calls

> 'guix pack -m my-manifest.scm

> --with-source=some-package=the-source.tar.gz', it'd seem the

> --with-source option pretty useless in this case if it doesn't touch the

> manifest's packages graph. It'd rather it error out with a message

> like: "package rewriting options have no effects for manifests",

> although I'd rather it was possible.

>

> Is there another alternative for the use case I'm after? The only other

> option available seems to be to extend the GUIX_PACKAGE_PATH with a

> module and to use -e '(@@ (my module) jami-with-certs)'; would the

> jami-with-certs graph get rewritten then?

> How about using transformations right into your manifest? Would that

> work for you?

> Hi,

>

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 10:23, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

>

>> How about using transformations right into your manifest? Would that

>> work for you?

>

> Maxim reported a related issue [1]:

>

> bug#61684: can't compose 'with-patch' with 'with-source'

>

> 1: <http://issues.guix.gnu.org/msgid/87mt56gac6.fsf@gmail.com>

> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

>> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any

>> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,

>> a file, a manifest or another means.

>

> I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.

>

> Incidentally, changing that would likely break existing workflows…

> Hi,

>

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:

>

>> Maxim Cournoyer <maxim.cournoyer@gmail.com> skribis:

>

> [...]

>

>>> It seems to me that the rewriting options should be honored on any

>>> packages being manipulated, whether they come from the Guix collection,

>>> a file, a manifest or another means.

>>

>> I’m not convinced; I think manifests should be interpreted literally.

>>

>> Incidentally, changing that would likely break existing workflows…

>

> Consequently, my inclination would be to close this issue as “wontfix”.

>

> WDYT?