From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: PATCH: LibreOffice Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 20:19:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20150531181916.GA3182@debian> References: <20150531090831.GA4344@debian> <87pp5gtzi1.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56287) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz7pW-00012r-1m for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 14:19:26 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz7pR-0007HF-1Y for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 14:19:25 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.131]:61642) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz7pQ-0007H2-Nk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 14:19:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87pp5gtzi1.fsf@netris.org> 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: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Hi Marc, thanks for your comments! On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 01:42:30PM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > (gnu packages which) has not existed since early March. 'which' was > moved to (gnu packages base) in ce0614ddb0. That is interesting. I think it worked for me since I still had which.go in my tree. > The 'configure' and 'build' phases are misleadingly named, given what > they actually do. However, I wonder whether this package is needed at > all. How about just including the 'origin' as an input to > 'libreoffice', unpack it after the 'unpack' phase, and then let the > standard phases in libreoffice take care of the usual patching jobs. > Would that work? >From what I understood, no. Libreoffice seems to expect the tarball in a special location, and the libreoffice build system takes care of unpacking it. But I am not a 100% sure whether the patching we do is needed or not; maybe everything would compile with the unchanged tarball. One of the problems is that the patching changes dates and causes an "autoreconf" (or similar) after unpacking anyway, so part of the /bin/sh-patching is reverted. Andreas