Re: [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1.

[Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>]

Hello Guix,

Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:

> Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com skribis:
>
>> From: Morgan Smith <Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com>
>>
>> * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs): Update to 27.1.
>> [arguments]: Add --with-cairo and --with-modules to #:configure-flags. Add
>> restore-emacs-pdump phase.
>> [inputs]: Add cairo, libxaw, jansson, gmp, and harfbuzz. Remove imagemagick
>> and libxft.
>> [native-inputs]: Add texlive.
>> (emacs-wide-int): Mark as deprecated package.
>> (emacs-no-x):
>> [arguments]: Add --with-jpeg=no --with-gif=no --with-tiff=no
>> to #:configure-flags.
>
> I see that Mark committed a similar patch just yesterday:
>
>   https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=36a09d185343375a5cba370431870f9c4435d623
>
> I suppose Mark hadn’t seen the ongoing discussion.

Indeed, I hadn't.  Gah, I'm terribly sorry about this.  I had done some
quick web searches for preexisting work on this, but clearly they were
insufficient, and I've never subscribed to the patches list.  In the
future, I'll know not to rely on web search engines for this.

> Mark, Morgan: could you see if there’s anything we’re missing from the
> patch Morgan submitted?

Looking now, here are the main differences I see between our patches:

* I found that I had to remove the 'restore-emacs-pdump' phase from most
  of the other emacs variants, namely the ones that use
  'gnu-build-system', because otherwise the inherited
  'restore-emacs-pdump' phase would fail.  Morgan's patch seems not to
  consider most of the other emacs variants, and I'm not sure if they
  were tested.  I briefly tested all of them except for 'guile-emacs'.

* Morgan removed the snippet code that deletes "eshell/esh-groups.el",
  whereas I replaced it with a call to 'find-files' to remove it only if
  present, as the previous comment suggested.  I'm not sure if this is
  still needed, though.

* Morgan's patch adds "libxaw" to inputs and "texinfo" to native-inputs.
  What's the rationale for these?

* I added 'pango' to the inputs, because the Emacs NEWS mentioned that
  Pango was used for font rendering when "--with-cairo" is used.
  However, it may be that "pango" finds its way into the build inputs
  without being explicitly mentioned.

* Morgan removed 'libxft' from the inputs of 'emacs', whereas I didn't.
  This was an oversight on my part.  However, if we remove it, it's
  possible that we might need to add it back to 'emacs-no-x-toolkit'.
  The references that I see to Pango in the Emacs code are within
  "#ifdef HAVE_GTK3".

* In 'emacs-no-x', my patch removes the new graphical library inputs
  (cairo, pango, and harfbuzz) and the "--with-cairo" flag, whereas
  Morgan's patch leaves "cairo" and "harfbuzz" as inputs, and overwrites
  the inherited configure-flags to be precisely ("--with-jpeg=no"
  "--with-gif=no" "--with-tiff=no"), apparently discarding the inherited
  "--with-modules" and "--disable-build-details" flags.

* Morgan made 'emacs-wide-int' into a deprecated package, whereas I
  thought that it might still be useful.  My rationale was this: from a
  brief skim, it looks like '--with-wide-int' might make *immediate*
  integers wider, which for some applications might perform much better
  than the heap-allocated arbitrary-size integers supported by Emacs 27.
  However, I didn't look carefully at this.

* I updated "emacs-exec-path.patch" and removed
  "emacs27-exec-path.patch", whereas Morgan's patch keeps both files and
  possibly leaves "emacs-exec-path.patch" orphaned.

* I updated the patches to apply cleanly to Emacs 27, although this was
  not strictly needed.

* I updated 'notmuch' in the previous commit to a version that builds
  successfully with Emacs 27.

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
> I confirm that with Mark's commit
> emacs-clojure-mode and emacs-elisp-refs are also broken.

Sorry about that.  If the Emacs 27 update breaks important packages, it
might be that reverting it is the proper action.  If the maintainers
decide to do this, I would not object.

   Best regards,
       Mark