From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add libjxr. Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 23:02:25 +0200 Message-ID: <87a8dmvpge.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87eg39qvjh.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20161021235859.GA9570@jasmine> <87a8dwrdf5.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20161023212929.GB6318@jasmine> <87bmy4bni6.fsf@gnu.org> <87mvhn4va2.fsf@openmailbox.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:32916) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0alr-00024x-W0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:02:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c0alo-0000hd-LA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2016 17:02:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87mvhn4va2.fsf@openmailbox.org> (Kei Kebreau's message of "Sat, 29 Oct 2016 00:46:29 -0400") 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: Kei Kebreau Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Kei Kebreau skribis: > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> >>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 04:33:18AM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch >>>> >> b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch >>>> >> new file mode 100644 >>>> >> index 0000000..cb5919e >>>> >> --- /dev/null >>>> >> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch >>>> >> @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ >>>> >> +Description: Prefer a cmake based build system >>>> >> +Author: Mathieu Malaterre >>>> >> +Forwarded: https://jxrlib.codeplex.com/discussions/440294 >>>> > >>>> > Why doesn't upstream's build system work? >>>>=20 >>>> Upstream's build system simply doesn't have configuration or >>>> installation targets in the provided Makefile. Using the cmake patch >>>> makes the definition cleaner at the cost of relying on outside work >>>> [1]. If this is not acceptable, I can see about writing manual >>>> replacement phases to the best of my ability. >>>>=20 >>>> [1]: https://jxrlib.codeplex.com/discussions/440294 >>> >>> Hm, not an ideal situation. >>> >>> If Debian is using this patch, we should link to it's source on Debian's >>> site instead of this message board. I don't know enough about CMake to >>> judge the patch but I'd be more comfortable if Debian was using it. >>> >>> What do others think? >> >> Regarding the choice between writing our own installation phase in >> Scheme and using this CMake thing instead, I think we should choose the >> most concise approach (in terms of lines of code). >> >> If the winner here is the CMake patch, then indeed, we should take the >> patch from Debian rather than from a message board (and include >> provenance information in the patch, as you wrote.) >> >> That said, I suspect an =E2=80=98install=E2=80=99 phase in Scheme would = be more concise >> than this new CMakeLists.txt (134 lines). >> >> Kei: WDYT? >> > > I have been working on writing our own installation phase, and it looks > like it will be more concise. Cool, thanks! > However, the patches need to be in DOS format to apply. The patch > doesn't seem to carry these line returns, which leads me to believe > that a standard git configuration won't accept them. Is there way > around this? But that=E2=80=99s unrelated to removing the CMakeLists.txt patch and adding your own install phase, right? :-) >From the description I=E2=80=99m not sure exactly what the problem is, but perhaps the =E2=80=98--binary=E2=80=99 option of =E2=80=98patch=E2=80=99 ca= n help? You can specify it in =E2=80=98patch-flags=E2=80=99: https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/origin-Reference.html Ludo=E2=80=99.