From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add qscintilla.
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20160913190412.GB5986@jasmine>
References: <87a8fddnyi.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87r38ndfwb.fsf@openmailbox.org>
	<20160913170529.GD20731@jasmine> <87k2efd6gy.fsf@openmailbox.org>
	<20160913181404.GA4295@jasmine> <87fup3d3sc.fsf@openmailbox.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37496)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bjt0V-0005aq-EM
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:04:36 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bjt0R-00081b-8l
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:04:34 -0400
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:37522)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1bjt0Q-000803-2C
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:04:31 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87fup3d3sc.fsf@openmailbox.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:59:31PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 02:01:33PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> >> Like below? And how could I then access qscintilla-for-octave from
> >> maths.scm if it isn't defined publicly?
> >
> > Yes, that looks right. But I would put qscintilla-for-octave in
> > maths.scm to avoid the issue you describe.
> 
> So would you say that this is clean enough that I could push both of
> these changes in their respecitive files before modifying the Octave definition?

I would wait to push the Qt 4 variant until you have made sure it works
with Octave.

Also, I didn't notice a difference between the arguments for each
package variant. If there is no difference, could the Qt 4 variant
inherit the arguments, too?