On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi! > > Andreas Enge skribis: > > > the following commit > > commit eb354bdacbf4154ec66038dac07f19bf4ced1fad > > Author: Ludovic Courtès > > Date: Mon May 9 15:54:34 2016 +0200 > > > > gnu: ghostscript: Do not build the statically-linked 'gs' binary. > > > > * gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (ghostscript)[arguments]: Remove > > 'build-so' and 'install-so' phases. Replace 'build' and 'install' > > phases. > > Ahem, I plaid guilty. > > > removes "gs" from the ghostscript package. However, this is the usual program > > that people expect. For instance, unison uses it for building its > > documentation. Is there a dynamically linked binary which replaces gs? > > If yes, should we add a symbolic link? > > I think so. > > For the current solution (avoiding a full rebuild), see commit > 61dc82d9b90d0545739c30bfc33003bd062071f0. LilyPond could hard-code the > file name of ‘gsc’. > > Alternately, we could provide a wrapper containing a ‘gs’ symlink. I think this was the option I liked the most, I don't believe any functionality is lost with a gs->gsc symlink, and it would still keep the reduced size of the closure. > > This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can’t find the thread > now. I think we mostly discussed it on IRC > > Thoughts? > > Ludo’. > -- Efraim Flashner אפרים פלשנר GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted