From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?utf-8?B?5a6L5paH5q2m?= Subject: Re: gobject-introspection typelibs and shared libraries Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 18:15:22 +0800 Message-ID: <87oapxpvb9.fsf@gmail.com> References: 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]:59122) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCQPa-0003Gh-Fo for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 05:15:23 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCQPX-0001Rt-7r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 05:15:22 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Federico Beffa , andreas@enge.fr, Guix-devel , Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= , "Mark H. Weaver" Federico Beffa writes: >>On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:42:42PM +0100, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>> If there=E2=80=99s consensus to install the symlink, that=E2=80=99s fin= e with me (if we >>> take that route, I would also suggest submitting a patch upstream so GCC >>> installs the symlink.) >> >>I am not in favour of adding such a symlink on our own and would rather >>keep with the standard builds as we usually do when there is no compelling >>reason to do otherwise. > > That's interesting. > > Consider that: > > * such a symlink would have spared much frustration to Mark (see > earlier posts in this thread). How about set $CC to 'gcc' in our 'gnu-build-system'? > > * It is likely that the update of 'gobject-introspection' to a newer > version would not have caused problems (see earlier posts in this > thread and https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-01/msg00196= .html). > And, from Ludovic's comment: "So far we=E2=80=99ve resisted the temptatio= n. > ...", I understand that there are a few other packages which would > benefit. > > * Up to now nobody could point out any *technical* drawback. (And if > we find one later, we can always revert.) > > Even if an action if beneficial to, say, 1 in 100 packages without > drawbacks to the other ones and the fix of that single package is > easy, it is still worth doing. I do not see a large number of people > contributing to this project. It is therefore important to minimize > the likelihood of a required manual intervention to fix problems. > Maintaining 1000's of software packages is time consuming! > > It would be the *GUIX project* the one who would benefit if decisions > would be taken based on technical arguments and merits instead of > feelings or the mood of the day. > > Fede