From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Patterson Subject: Re: StumpWM package doesn't work Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2016 23:11:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20161203231157.24e4b6a0@uwaterloo.ca> References: <87inr9kat6.fsf@riseup.net> <87eg1xh3a2.fsf@member.fsf.org> <87a8ckmz6c.fsf@gnu.org> <20161128022715.510e5115@uwaterloo.ca> <87vav8dj94.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56896) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDOVm-0004iI-3C for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 23:34:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cDOVi-0006PH-Vk for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2016 23:34:50 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87vav8dj94.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+gcggh-help-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?B?Q291cnTDqHM=?= Cc: help-guix@gnu.org, Toni Reina On Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:53:16 +0100 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > Andy Patterson skribis: >=20 > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:43:23 +0100 > > ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) wrote: > > =20 > >> iyzsong@member.fsf.org (=E5=AE=8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6) skribis: > >> =20 > >> > Toni Reina writes: > >> > =20 > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> I'm trying to install `sbcl-stumpwm` package and looks like it > >> >> doesn't work correctly. It's installed with no errors, but it > >> >> doesn't generate the stumpwm binary file. > >> >> > >> >> The following package will be installed: > >> >> sbcl-stumpwm > >> >> 0.9.9 /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.= 9.9 > >> >> > >> >> ls /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.9.9 = =20 > >> >> -> lib share =20 > >> >> =20 > >> > > >> > It's in the "bin" output of sbcl-stumpwm package, you can get it > >> > with: > >> > > >> > guix package -i sbcl-stumpwm:bin =20 > >>=20 > >> It might be clearer to have an =E2=80=9Cout=E2=80=9D and a =E2=80=9Cli= b=E2=80=9D output (instead of > >> =E2=80=9Cbin=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cout=E2=80=9D). WDYT, Andy & =E5=AE= =8B=E6=96=87=E6=AD=A6? =20 > > > > I think that would basically shift the awkwardness from package > > installation over to package development, since it would then be > > required that all dependants of stumpwm use the lib output in the > > inputs field (but only on sbcl? - since ecl binaries aren't > > supported just yet). =20 >=20 > OK but there=E2=80=99s only one dependent: >=20 > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > $ guix refresh -l sbcl-stumpwm > A single dependent package: sbcl-stumpwm-with-slynk-0.9.9 > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >=20 > So I think it would be preferable to do it the way I suggest, no? >=20 Sure, I agree. Packages which have a program built are more likely to be leaves, after all. Since there haven't been other replies, I think we've reached a consensus. I'll work to roll this into other updates in the Lisp packaging area, and report back. -- Andy