[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add giac-xcas
From: |
Mathieu Lirzin |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add giac-xcas |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:21:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Nicolas Goaziou <address@hidden> writes:
> Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> It depends if this feature is essential for using xcas? If yes then
>> adding it as a propagated-input is still not required unless "latex,
>> makeindex, ..." are used using the PATH which could not be the case
>> since those programs are checked at configure time.
>
> I removed perl, tcsh, texlive-minimal as inputs, and tried
>
> guix environment --ad-hoc texlive giac-xcas --fallback -- xcas
>
> I could preview the sheet using LaTeX. However, I sometimes got
>
> sh: pstopnm: command not found
> sh: pnmtopng: command not found
with texlive-minimal as input, and without texlive in the environment do
you get some errors?
> Also, texlive-minimal is still in the closure, probably due to some
> other input, so it doesn't reduce the size of the package.
OK, so no real benefit. :)
>> Looks good to me. guix lint is happy and the build is reproducible. I
>> have modified the indentation to follow our “custom” Emacs rules. Here
>> is the updated patch.
>
> Funnily, I broke Emacs indentation on purpose because other package
> definitions in the file were disagreeing with it. I should have trusted
> good ole Emacs.
Yeah it is a known problem. Some people don't use Emacs so they are
likely to introduce indentation mistakes. Emacs + rules from
.dir-locals.el is our reference indentation (minor some emacs bugs).
>> Is there a particular reason for not patching this within the
>> ‘arguments’ field?
>
> This is because the test issue is related to a given release, i.e.,
> a given `source' field. OTOH, `arguments' are for control over the build
> process, which is not going to change anytime soon.
>
> To put it differently, I put the temporary fix in `snippet' and the
> persistent one in `arguments'.
OK, I understand what was the intention. However I don't think we
usually make this sort of distinction.
The ‘arguments’ field is for general purpose build customization,
whereas The ‘snippet’ field in origin is meant for removing/modifying
parts of the code that don't respect GNU FSDG.
It is done this way so that when the user is doing ‘guix build --source
PACKAGE’ to get the tarball, a freed version is provided instead of the
one from upstream.
> Moreover, you suggest to merge the two fixes into a single phase named
> `fix-makefiles', which, albeit correct, is less accurate than
> `patch-bin-cp'.
I think you are right, could you send an updated patch with two separate
phases? Sorry I love nitpicking. ;)
Thanks,
--
Mathieu Lirzin