guix-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#36411] [PATCH] gnu: Add libresprite.


From: Jakob L. Kreuze
Subject: [bug#36411] [PATCH] gnu: Add libresprite.
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2019 20:49:04 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux)

Hi Tobias,

Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <address@hidden> writes:

> I didn't check all the bundled packages, but at least freetype2 and
> libpng are trivial to unbundle (not patched in any way) and probably
> the most important to, security-wise, so things are looking good even
> if upstream wouldn't cooperate.

I believe they're already unbundled in the 'aseprite' package I'm
inheriting.

#+BEGIN_SRC scheme
    (arguments
     '(#:configure-flags
       ;; Use shared libraries instead of building bundled source.
       (list "-DWITH_WEBP_SUPPORT=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_CURL=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_GIFLIB=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_JPEGLIB=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_ZLIB=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_LIBPNG=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_LIBLOADPNG=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_LIBWEBP=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_TINYXML=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_PIXMAN=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_FREETYPE=1"
             "-DUSE_SHARED_ALLEGRO4=1"
             "-DENABLE_UPDATER=0" ; no auto-updates
             (string-append "-DFREETYPE_INCLUDE_DIR="
                            (assoc-ref %build-inputs "freetype")
                            "/include/freetype2"))))
#+END_SRC

#+BEGIN_SRC
jakob@Epsilon ~/Code/guix/gnu/packages $ ldd $(which libresprite) | grep 
freetype
        libfreetype.so.6 => 
/gnu/store/66db1c64qm8ar4d7qjxsyl3xvjqjpgj7-freetype-2.9.1/lib/libfreetype.so.6 
(0x00007fa317cd7000)
jakob@Epsilon ~/Code/guix/gnu/packages $ ldd $(which libresprite) | grep libpng
        libpng16.so.16 => 
/gnu/store/c7sm7sn3yccffpggxrrfipqcn4wz3vfw-libpng-1.6.37/lib/libpng16.so.16 
(0x00007f5715956000)
#+END_SRC

> Now, I'd say it needn't be added to the description either. We
> generally don't note the often chequered ancestry of our packages, nor
> the fact that they are ‘free’ or ‘open source’, and this is just a
> combination of the two. But at least description space is cheaper if
> you disagree. ;-)

I just thought it'd be a little tacky if I kept the old description,
since it uses the name "Aseprite" twice.

Regards,
Jakob

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]