From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Taylan Ulrich Kammer Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add guile-emacs! Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 10:56:23 +0200 Message-ID: <87wq0bh70o.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r3qo5idm.fsf@earlgrey.lan> <873830f2m0.fsf@earlgrey.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsowN-0000YB-BE for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 04:56:28 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsowL-0001Pn-Lt for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 04:56:27 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:38356) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YsowL-0001P6-Ej for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 14 May 2015 04:56:25 -0400 Received: by wicnf17 with SMTP id nf17so85961168wic.1 for ; Thu, 14 May 2015 01:56:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <873830f2m0.fsf@earlgrey.lan> (Christopher Allan Webber's message of "Wed, 13 May 2015 19:01:07 -0500") 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: Christopher Allan Webber Cc: Guix-devel Christopher Allan Webber writes: > Okay, how about a version of guile-emacs that works and incorporates > feedback from this thread? Yeah? Anyone? > > Whoooooooooo guile-emacs! :) Yay! :-) I would have thought these would go to guile.scm and emacs.scm. What do others think? > +(define-public guile-for-guile-emacs > [...] > + (inputs > + `(("gettext" ,gnu-gettext) Sure it shouldn't be in native-inputs? I'm guessing autogen uses it. > +(define-public guile-emacs > [...] > + (substitute-keyword-arguments `(#:parallel-build? #f A comment explaining why parallel builds are disabled would be good. > + ;; Tests aren't passing for now. > + ;; Obviously we should re-enable this! > + #:tests? #f Tests should generally always be enabled so the second line of the comment would be redundant; just a nitpick. :-) Otherwise looks good to me. Thanks! Taylan