[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript |
Date: |
Mon, 29 May 2017 19:22:18 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) |
Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> + (replace 'build
>> + (lambda _
>> + ;; Build 'libgs.so', but don't build the statically-linked 'gs'
>> + ;; binary (saves 22 MiB).
>> + (zero? (system* "make" "so" "-j"
>> + (number->string
>> (parallel-job-count))))))
>
> Couldn’t we just add “#:make-flags '("so")” and avoid replacing the
> build phase?
FWIW, I think it's a bad habit to abuse #:make-flags for targets,
because the contents of #:make-flags is also passed to 'make' during the
'install' and 'check' phases.
IMO, if we want to avoid replacing the build phase in cases like this,
it would be better to add a separate #:build-target argument.
Thoughts?
Mark
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, (continued)
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Marius Bakke, 2017/05/20
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/05/21
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/05/23
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Leo Famulari, 2017/05/29
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Leo Famulari, 2017/05/29
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/05/29
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Leo Famulari, 2017/05/29
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Leo Famulari, 2017/05/29
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript,
Mark H Weaver <=
- Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript, Leo Famulari, 2017/05/30