From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: simple-scan: Update to 3.19.91. Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:49:14 -0500 Message-ID: <20160309074914.GA18130@jasmine> References: <1457474675-21775-1-git-send-email-tobias.geerinckx.rice@gmail.com> <20160308230232.GA24107@jasmine> <20160309000506.GD24107@jasmine> <20160309013937.GA25866@jasmine> 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]:52825) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYrv-0002wq-0S for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:49:19 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYrp-0004O7-Se for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:49:18 -0500 Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.29]:34362) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYrp-0004O0-P8 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:49:13 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160309013937.GA25866@jasmine> 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: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 08:39:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:25:04AM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > On 09/03/2016, Leo Famulari wrote: > > > [...] pass to ./configure '--disable-packagekit'. Would that work? > > > > So do ‘we’: > > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > > '(#:configure-flags '("--disable-packagekit") > > Oops! Serves me right for trying to squeeze this review in earlier ;) > > > There are various ways to code this, but none that don't amount to > > deleting (generated) source files.[1] > > I didn't realize this was generated C code. In that case it's closer to > a compiled binary than source code, don't you think? Can we delete all > the generated files and rebuild them from source? Anyways, that is probably something to look into later. I think it makes sense to do this update, remove that file, and include a link to the bug report with a bit of context. Does anyone have any objections to that plan?