Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add libjxr.

[Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2582 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 04:33:18AM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> The URL for the upstream site's tarball is
> http://download-codeplex.sec.s-msft.com/Download/Release?ProjectName=jxrlib&DownloadId=685250&FileTime=130142428056630000&Build=21031.
> 
> Is something like that acceptable in Guix code? I know it works with
> wget, but I was hesitant to use it as the source URL.

Now that's an ugly URL! But, I still think we should download the source
code from the upstream site rather than from Debian, whenever possible.

> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-fix-typos.patch
> >> b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-fix-typos.patch
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..3c051dd
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-fix-typos.patch
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
> >> +Description: Fix typos and remove some warnings
> >> +Author: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
> >
> > Can you include a link to the source of this patch?
> >
> 
> This patch comes from Debian's set of patches for the sources. Could I
> leave "This patch comes from Debian" with the link to it on the top, or
> is more detail necessary?

Ideally, patches include a link to their source and a brief explanation
of why we need them. If we write the patch ourselves, then the author(s)
should be named and they should also include an explanation.

One way or another, we should report these bugs upstream.

> >> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch
> >> b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..cb5919e
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/libjxr-use-cmake.patch
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
> >> +Description: Prefer a cmake based build system
> >> +Author: Mathieu Malaterre <malat@debian.org>
> >> +Forwarded: https://jxrlib.codeplex.com/discussions/440294
> >
> > Why doesn't upstream's build system work?
> 
> Upstream's build system simply doesn't have configuration or
> installation targets in the provided Makefile. Using the cmake patch
> makes the definition cleaner at the cost of relying on outside work
> [1]. If this is not acceptable, I can see about writing manual
> replacement phases to the best of my ability.
> 
> [1]: https://jxrlib.codeplex.com/discussions/440294

Hm, not an ideal situation.

If Debian is using this patch, we should link to it's source on Debian's
site instead of this message board. I don't know enough about CMake to
judge the patch but I'd be more comfortable if Debian was using it.

What do others think?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]