From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add emacs-ess.
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2016 15:44:42 +0200
Message-ID: <87h9c4gpx1.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87h9c45jlq.fsf@gnu.org> <577BB2BC.6030306@uq.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59171)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1bKQeR-0007H2-DQ
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:44:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <roel@gnu.org>) id 1bKQeL-0002O7-F5
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 09:44:34 -0400
In-reply-to: <577BB2BC.6030306@uq.edu.au>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au>
Cc: guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>


Ben Woodcroft writes:

> Hi.
>
> On 05/07/16 20:56, Roel Janssen wrote:
>> Dear Guix,
>>
>> I have a question about the following patch to add emacs-ess.
>
> Thanks, I was also making a half-hearted attempt at this.

Sorry for the duplicated effort.  I am happy to merge the two if you're
doing something more intelligent in your patch :).

>> By default, the build files rely upon a LaTeX distribution to be
>> installed to generate a PDF from its Texinfo documentation.
>>
>> I know that texlive is quite a heavy package, so should I separate the
>> output of this package in "out" and "doc", and substitute/patch the
>> involved Makefiles?
>
> Have you tried texlive-minimal ?

I hadn't thought of that.  Good idea.  Would it be acceptable to use
texlive-minimal instead, without splitting it in two outputs?

>> You can find the patch below.
>
> I didn't find the time to test the patch, but looks fine to me on the 
> face of it. I had it in statistics.scm but I think emacs.scm is fine too.

I think it is more Emacs-specific than statistics-specific.  But either
option is fine with me.

Thanks!

Kind regards,
Roel Janssen