[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 01/01: gnu: Add niftilib.
From: |
Kei Kebreau |
Subject: |
Re: 01/01: gnu: Add niftilib. |
Date: |
Sun, 19 Mar 2017 17:03:56 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> writes:
> address@hidden (John Darrington) writes:
>
>> jmd pushed a commit to branch master
>> in repository guix.
>>
>> commit 21122bd79e7f9b0b5349ffffe2c146bace7205dc
>> Author: John Darrington <address@hidden>
>> Date: Tue Mar 7 07:59:21 2017 +0100
>>
>> gnu: Add niftilib.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/image.scm (niftilib): New variable.
>
> Did you post this for review? Please see below for comments.
>
It was in fact posted for review. I reviewed it.
>> +(define-public niftilib
>> + (package
>> + (name "niftilib")
>> + (version "2.0.0")
>> + (source (origin
>> + (method url-fetch)
>> + (uri (list (string-append "mirror://sourceforge/niftilib/"
>> + "nifticlib/nifticlib_"
>> + (string-join (string-split version #\.) "_")
>> + "/nifticlib-" version ".tar.gz")))
>
> Omit the superfluous 'list' call above.
>
I missed this somehow.
>> + (sha256
>> + (base32 "123z9bwzgin5y8gi5ni8j217k7n683whjsvg0lrpii9flgk8isd3"))))
>> + (build-system gnu-build-system)
>> + (arguments
>> + '(#:tests? #f
>> + #:parallel-build? #f
>> + #:phases
>> + (modify-phases %standard-phases
>> + (replace 'install
>
> Is there a reason not to use the included "make install" target? It
> looks like it should work, if you pass appropriate settings for
> INSTALL_{BIN,LIB,INC}_DIR in #:make-flags.
>
>> + (lambda _
>> + (for-each
>> + (lambda (dir)
>> + (let ((directory (assoc-ref %outputs "out")))
>
> If you were going to keep the custom 'install' phase, then instead of
> using %outputs, please accept the 'outputs' keyword argument and use
> that.
>
>> + (mkdir-p (string-append directory "/" dir))
>> + (zero? (system* "cp" "-a" dir directory))))
>> + '("bin" "lib" "include"))))
>
> We have a 'copy-recursively' procedure that you could use here. If you
> were going to use "cp", then you should pay attention to its result code
> so that failures are not silently ignored (by using 'every' instead of
> 'for-each').
>
This is interesting. Which module contains the definition for the
'every' procedure?
>> + (replace 'configure
>> + (lambda _
>> + (substitute* "Makefile"
>> + (("^SHELL[ \t]*=[ \t]*csh")
>> + (string-append "SHELL = "
>> + (assoc-ref %build-inputs "bash")
>> + "/bin/sh"))
>> +
>> + (("^CFLAGS[ \t]*=[ \t]\\$\\(ANSI_FLAGS\\)")
>> + "CFLAGS = $(ANSI_FLAGS) -fPIC")
>> +
>> + (("^ZLIB_INC[ \t]*=[ \t]*-I/usr/include")
>> + (string-append "ZLIB_INC = -I"
>> + (assoc-ref %build-inputs "zlib")
>> + "/include"))
>> +
>> + (("^CP[ \t]*=[ \t]*cp")
>> + (string-append "CP = "
>> + (assoc-ref %build-inputs "coreutils")
>> + "/bin/cp")))
>
> Instead of patching the Makefile, it's preferable to simply pass these
> settings in #:make-flags. Also, within phase procedures, please accept
> the 'inputs' and 'outputs' keyword arguments instead of using
> %build-inputs and %outputs. Finally, for purposes of Makefile settings,
> SHELL can simply be set to "bash" or "sh", since it's in the PATH. I'm
> not sure why you changed the setting for CP.
>
> Mark
I should keep a closer eye on details like these. Thank you for the
second review.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature