From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brett Gilio Subject: bug#38500: Ruby is built against libruby-static.a Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2019 12:33:04 -0600 Message-ID: <87fthtuz6n.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87fthwdr0p.fsf@posteo.net> <87a782bz90.fsf@nckx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:41109) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ieNrA-0005bC-Bp for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:34:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieNr9-0001ym-0i for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:34:04 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ieNr8-0001xQ-It for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:34:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ieNr8-0005Jd-GV for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 09 Dec 2019 13:34:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87a782bz90.fsf@nckx> (Tobias Geerinckx-Rice's message of "Sun, 08 Dec 2019 16:42:15 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: 38500@debbugs.gnu.org, Vicente Eduardo Tobias Geerinckx-Rice writes: > You could ask Pjotr Prins and David Thompson but I suspect that it was > simply an oversight: most packages link dynamically by default because > it's the sane thing to do, and it would have been reasonable to assume > Ruby did too. Tobias, I did some investigating about enabling the --enable-shared flag for dynamic linkage of the Ruby package. Superficially it seems that simply --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- #:configure-flags (list "--enable-shared") --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- takes care of the issue. However, this will trigger a rebuild more along the lines of core-updates. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- Building the following 1261 packages would ensure 3512 dependent packages are rebuilt: --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It is basically everything from SBCL, R, GNOME, XFCE, several Python packages, and more which is expected. So I guess the question is where does this patch go given that it isn't an update but would still spark a massive rebuild? &&& Vicente, I have a suspicion that this patch will need to rest on core-updates (or staging) for a number of weeks before it reaches master. In the meantime, I suggest you just inherit the ruby package in your own channel with the package arguments modified to reflect the `#:configure-flags` snippet I have listed above. Okay. Carry on. -- Brett M. Gilio https://git.sr.ht/~brettgilio/