From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Lirzin Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add giac-xcas Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:21:46 +0200 Message-ID: <87wpo3spdh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87inzt7cc3.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87h9f9mvfg.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <878u0kp805.fsf@gnu.org> <87a8kzbx9d.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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]:57232) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1apl9U-000608-Q4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:21:53 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1apl9Q-0008Oy-Od for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 19:21:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87a8kzbx9d.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> (Nicolas Goaziou's message of "Tue, 12 Apr 2016 00:23:26 +0200") 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: Nicolas Goaziou Cc: Guix-devel Nicolas Goaziou writes: > Mathieu Lirzin writes: > >> It depends if this feature is essential for using xcas? If yes then >> adding it as a propagated-input is still not required unless "latex, >> makeindex, ..." are used using the PATH which could not be the case >> since those programs are checked at configure time. > > I removed perl, tcsh, texlive-minimal as inputs, and tried > > guix environment --ad-hoc texlive giac-xcas --fallback -- xcas > > I could preview the sheet using LaTeX. However, I sometimes got > > sh: pstopnm: command not found > sh: pnmtopng: command not found with texlive-minimal as input, and without texlive in the environment do you get some errors? > Also, texlive-minimal is still in the closure, probably due to some > other input, so it doesn't reduce the size of the package. OK, so no real benefit. :) >> Looks good to me. guix lint is happy and the build is reproducible. I >> have modified the indentation to follow our =E2=80=9Ccustom=E2=80=9D Ema= cs rules. Here >> is the updated patch. > > Funnily, I broke Emacs indentation on purpose because other package > definitions in the file were disagreeing with it. I should have trusted > good ole Emacs. Yeah it is a known problem. Some people don't use Emacs so they are likely to introduce indentation mistakes. Emacs + rules from .dir-locals.el is our reference indentation (minor some emacs bugs). >> Is there a particular reason for not patching this within the >> =E2=80=98arguments=E2=80=99 field? > > This is because the test issue is related to a given release, i.e., > a given `source' field. OTOH, `arguments' are for control over the build > process, which is not going to change anytime soon. > > To put it differently, I put the temporary fix in `snippet' and the > persistent one in `arguments'. OK, I understand what was the intention. However I don't think we usually make this sort of distinction. The =E2=80=98arguments=E2=80=99 field is for general purpose build customiz= ation, whereas The =E2=80=98snippet=E2=80=99 field in origin is meant for removing= /modifying parts of the code that don't respect GNU FSDG. It is done this way so that when the user is doing =E2=80=98guix build --so= urce PACKAGE=E2=80=99 to get the tarball, a freed version is provided instead of= the one from upstream. > Moreover, you suggest to merge the two fixes into a single phase named > `fix-makefiles', which, albeit correct, is less accurate than > `patch-bin-cp'. I think you are right, could you send an updated patch with two separate phases? Sorry I love nitpicking. ;) Thanks, --=20 Mathieu Lirzin