From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: gobject-introspection typelibs and shared libraries Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 13:02:44 +0100 Message-ID: <20150117120244.GA8583@debian> References: 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]:44729) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCS5h-0007xG-Bi for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:02:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YCS5g-0003Ed-Fg for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 07:02:57 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Federico Beffa Cc: Guix-devel On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:46:35AM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote: > It would be the *GUIX project* the one who would benefit if decisions > would be taken based on technical arguments and merits instead of > feelings or the mood of the day. Why do you suggest that my message was inspired by feelings or the mood of the day? In fact, it was rather by the principles and design choices we have made (without necessarily writing them down) in the past. Especially with little available work power, I think it is important that we do not make too many modifications to the upstream packages; there are distributions out there with a tendency to become more or less upstream themselves... On the long run, this would be a nightmare to maintain. On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 11:47:20AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > John Darrington skribis: > > If we choose to do that, then for consistency we should also > > do (setenv "LEX" "flex") and (setenv "YACC" "bison") Possibly a few others too. > Bah, this suggests that it’s a can of worms. I think this makes exactly my technical point above... Now we can and do make exceptions. About the particular issue, I do not have very strong feelings. I fail to see why '(setenv "CC" "gcc")' in cases where it is necessary poses major problems; but having a symlink would also be okay. But if we go for the latter, I think you should bring it up with the gcc project first. Andreas