On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 06:30:35PM -0800, Christopher Allan Webber wrote: > New version. >
> From 03f8891a2635b6d8f349af0809547e75b9c0e112 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Christopher Allan Webber <cweb...@dustycloud.org> > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:04:18 -0800 > Subject: [PATCH 02/18] gnu: Add python2-apipkg. > > * gnu/packages/python.scm (python2-apipkg): New variable. > --- > gnu/packages/python.scm | 10 +++++++++- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gnu/packages/python.scm b/gnu/packages/python.scm > index 561f64a..ef91754 100644 > --- a/gnu/packages/python.scm > +++ b/gnu/packages/python.scm > @@ -6852,7 +6852,15 @@ applications.") > package and greatly reduce the number of imports for your users. It is a > small > pure Python module that works on virtually all Python versions.") > (home-page "https://bitbucket.org/hpk42/apipkg";) > - (license license:expat))) > + (license license:expat) > + (properties `((python2-variant . ,(delay python2-apipkg)))))) > + > +(define-public python2-apipkg > + (package > + (inherit (package-with-python2 > + (strip-python2-variant python-apipkg))) > + (native-inputs > + `(("python2-setuptools" ,python2-setuptools))))) I noticed that python-apipkg uses unzip as a native-input, so this variant would lose unzip. I tested it python-apipkg and it doesn't *actually* need unzip to build... not sure why I thought it did. Would you mind removing unzip from python-apipkg? > > (define-public python-execnet > (package > -- > 2.6.3 >
