From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ricardo Wurmus Subject: Re: texmaker, Qt and Chromium Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2016 11:45:54 +0200 Message-ID: <87zimftbql.fsf@elephly.net> References: <877f9kufxx.fsf@elephly.net> <87shs7xno6.fsf@gnu.org> <8737k7urk0.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51371) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsoCp-0005pM-ID for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 05:46:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bsoCo-0008U5-JA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 08 Oct 2016 05:46:11 -0400 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" To: David Craven Cc: guix-devel David Craven writes: >> I have no problems dropping Texmaker. I’m not even using it. > > That would be a shame, but I'm not using it either... I don't think > there's a problem with bundling in this case, I just don't understand > why you where against bundling in cargo's case, but not this one, > that's all. I'm all for striving for ideals and perfectionism, as long > as we keep in mind that nothing is perfect and stay pragmatic. The situation with Texmaker is: we used to have a build of Qt where qtwebengine was included. (This was before we had a set of modular Qt packages, IIRC.) Then we ripped qtwebengine out of the monolithic “qt” package for good reasons. As a result a couple of packages broke. So this is about fixing a regression. We still got rid of bundling for *most* packages using Qt. The approach you suggested for cargo (a new package) is to make bundling the default and in the build system, if I understood correctly. We’ve gone to great lengths to avoid bundling in providing other packages. See the Java bootstrap, for example, or Ruby. I don’t think it’s “perfectionist” to apply the same standards to other languages and build systems. ~~ Ricardo