[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add giac-xcas
From: |
Nicolas Goaziou |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add giac-xcas |
Date: |
Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:23:26 +0200 |
Hello,
Mathieu Lirzin <address@hidden> writes:
> In fact it is public. It is just that the module (gnu packages xiph)
> use a different convention which is to define "public" variable with
> ‘define’ and to add them to the #:export list of the module, instead of
> directly using ‘define-public’. Either way is equivalent in Guile.
OK. Understood.
> 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.
>
> WDYT?
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
Not sure it is related.
Also, texlive-minimal is still in the closure, probably due to some
other input, so it doesn't reduce the size of the package.
> 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.
> 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'.
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'.
Anyway, this is just nitpicking; I'm fine with all the changes you made.
> Thanks and welcome!
Thank you for the review.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Goaziou 0x80A93738