From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:53560)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iSo7X-0003jj-S9
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:11:08 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iSo7V-0000Sg-OB
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:11:07 -0500
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:35123)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
 id 1iSo7R-0000Qc-Ul
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:11:03 -0500
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
 (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1iSo7R-0007qN-Ns
 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Nov 2019 15:11:01 -0500
Subject: [bug#37991] (no subject)
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.37991.B37991.157315744630125@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludo@gnu.org>
References: <20191030130836.728314-1-josh@inv.alid.pw>
 <87ftja4bp0.fsf@inv.alid.pw> <87eeyn5m5n.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87wocd6nbh.fsf@inv.alid.pw>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 21:10:33 +0100
In-Reply-To: <87wocd6nbh.fsf@inv.alid.pw> (Josh Holland's message of "Wed, 06
 Nov 2019 15:23:30 +0000")
Message-ID: <87d0e3qwg6.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
 <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Josh Holland <josh@inv.alid.pw>
Cc: 37991@debbugs.gnu.org

Hi Josh,

Josh Holland <josh@inv.alid.pw> skribis:

> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>> Could you check =E2=80=98guix size redshift=E2=80=99 vs. =E2=80=98guix s=
ize redshift-wayland=E2=80=99,
>> to estimate the cost of supporting both X and Wayland?
> $ ./pre-inst-env guix size redshift

[...]

> total: 126.6 MiB
>
> $ ./pre-inst-env guix size redshift-wayland

[...]

> total: 136.7 MiB
>
>
>> If the cost in size is too important, then we could keep separate
>> packages, but in that case one should inherit from the other to reduce
>> duplication.
>
> I agree, but IMO 10 MiB is fairly insignificant.  My only reservation is
> that this isn't a formally released package, but I've been using it for
> a week or so without any issues (though I haven't tested it on an X11
> system).

I agree.

So, could you send a patch that updates =E2=80=98redshift=E2=80=99 to this =
snapshot and
adds Wayland support?  Just add a comment stating why we=E2=80=99re using t=
his
snapshot instead of the latest release.

Thanks!

Ludo=E2=80=99.