From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42075) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fMfIJ-0004uR-9M for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 May 2018 15:56:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fMfII-0008Aj-F6 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 May 2018 15:56:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:42021) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fMfII-0008Af-CI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 May 2018 15:56:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fMfII-00035U-5t for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sat, 26 May 2018 15:56:02 -0400 Subject: bug#31540: [PATCH] gnu: xapers: Fix recommended packages Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) References: <874lj25422.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 21:55:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874lj25422.fsf@gmail.com> (Adam Massmann's message of "Sun, 20 May 2018 18:56:53 -0400") Message-ID: <87tvquyyx6.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Adam Massmann Cc: 31540-done@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Adam, Adam Massmann skribis: > Below is a patch to fix/update inputs for xapers. When I originally > added xapers I avoided including inputs upstream considers > "recommended." After using Guix and xapers some more and thinking about > it, I now lean towards including these inputs because in this case not > including them will break xapers functionality in undocumented ways, and > the recommended packages are relatively modest. However, I am also > curious for future use if there is any documentation on standards for > handling "recommended" packages (e.g. packages other disdros would > assign a "recommended tag" to) in Guix? I couldn't find anything in the > manual, but it is very possible I missed something. There=E2=80=99s currently no mechanism to recommend a package. However in = this case the recommend packages need to be present at build time, not just at configure time IIUC, so a recommendation system wouldn=E2=80=99t help, w= ould it? For optional build-time dependencies, a criterion we commonly use is the benefit vs. space ratio. So basically you run =E2=80=98guix size=E2=80=99 = with and without the optional dependency, and based on that you determine whether it=E2=80=99s a good idea to add it. Here I get 323=C2=A0MiB with your patch and 324=C2=A0MiB (!) without it for= the whole xapers closure. I think that=E2=80=99s because the new one no longer refers to xterm or something? > I also disabled the "xapers-adder" command from spawning an x-terminal > program (upstream uses Debian's "x-terminal-emulator"). By disabling > this function we avoid pushing an x-terminal program onto users, which I > find undesirable (if users need to spawn a terminal they can just wrap > xapers-adder e.g. "xterm -e xapers-adder %F"). However, I'm open to > other solutions if anyone else has another preference/idea (see comment > in patch). Makes sense to me. >>>From 434455c9be92ecb34e220726dfc75b916e0eaa6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Adam Massmann > Date: Sun, 20 May 2018 18:50:03 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: xapers: Fix recommended packages > > * gnu/packages/search.scm (xapers): [inputs]: remove python, poppler > [propagated-inputs]: add poppler, xclip, xdg-utils. > [arguments]: modify-phases to disable x-terminal options. Applied, thanks! Ludo=E2=80=99.