From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: Gs Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2016 09:43:06 +0300 Message-ID: <20160724064306.GE4905@debian-netbook> References: <20160722220501.GA6445@solar> <87twfgmxas.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54246) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRD8E-0000mi-5c for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 02:43:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bRD8A-0002kr-01 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2016 02:43:21 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87twfgmxas.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Hi! >=20 > Andreas Enge skribis: >=20 > > the following commit > > commit eb354bdacbf4154ec66038dac07f19bf4ced1fad > > Author: Ludovic Court=C3=A8s > > Date: Mon May 9 15:54:34 2016 +0200 > > > > gnu: ghostscript: Do not build the statically-linked 'gs' binary. > > =20 > > * gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (ghostscript)[arguments]: Remove > > 'build-so' and 'install-so' phases. Replace 'build' and 'install' > > phases. >=20 > Ahem, I plaid guilty. >=20 > > removes "gs" from the ghostscript package. However, this is the usual p= rogram > > 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? >=20 > I think so. >=20 > For the current solution (avoiding a full rebuild), see commit > 61dc82d9b90d0545739c30bfc33003bd062071f0. LilyPond could hard-code the > file name of =E2=80=98gsc=E2=80=99. >=20 > Alternately, we could provide a wrapper containing a =E2=80=98gs=E2=80=99= 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. >=20 > This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can=E2=80=99t find the= thread > now. I think we mostly discussed it on IRC >=20 > Thoughts? >=20 > Ludo=E2=80=99. >=20 --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXlGN6AAoJEPTB05F+rO6TVLAP/R/ckMz1xNrQ0eAtTP0i9vhL 1q3Op0xGAHMYx9VJD+vN9c5s58POMKFogB7KtJSHWNwUTPNNEa+Z2iv6IdqL9zhM +HzFeB6vkgGUOvamG9st2bX89BnTp002GKX7XkhF2AITsH6s77/67uHg8TNeO4zf xKtsPiU+30UbdxYJ614GisrfQrwVYYzREEzTK3YPmP8wAVVyflp4Lorr1sonEEvU KgyXstUO0hqQtFZcdwxmi/RdCFrb0hszXdEj63Hnw6mONPYvZna3fgWP9jX4OMzb jlXt2kSN1eOQweftcHBT1H0hKacqLjjEPI7CMax4sqTI//mOXiKHhALPoPMHESqY M4+ulaVvDYX1ljWWOsT2NK5aEKwaXKromkhxOb0Iry4tMgh2BW/YJMlT6P8YV0CC bP6r/dUnrG6qSA12ND59NomWD2xb6VHI9QSa3r0dtNEmw2JLW1EmUQRZfP7OQcDB j2gaG+bb16AmTyT9i5PqFwzKVtvu8PKc7SFXi+MwrwhpSlNCvT4VTGjJsoe0iR+T 39wMtSuYZaQUR5YIG/SMXM0D3CyHI8+5/zK8G0uvSwnnBtZuoqbFBWwiAT39cjAM oW36NmCXkUJkfVnpWlr9Y1HYO68/2w1oN+tZWHV395YPLgmQD8mXCK2A8mmh5AZr ehsEe8FdM9mPTPsrjyeF =4Ag/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WlEyl6ow+jlIgNUh--