Re: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: Add gpgscm.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Hello,

ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is> skribis:
>>
>>> From 6babb18479de83bd19c44412c7957918d2c917b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: ng0 <ng0@we.make.ritual.n0.is>
>>> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:11:41 +0000
>>> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: Add gpgscm.
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/gnupg.scm (gpgscm): New variable.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +    (home-page "https://gnupg.org/")
>>> +    (synopsis "tinyscheme implementation used by The GNU Privacy Guard")
>>
>> I’ve seen some of the discussions on IRC about gpgscm.  However, it’s
>> not clear to me why we should make it a separate package.  AIUI, it’s
>> meant as a purely GnuPG-internal tool, and as such it may evolve in
>> lockstep with the rest of the GnuPG code base.
>>
>> So I’d be tempted to keep it internal to GnuPG, unless upstream decides
>> to make it a separate package (which seems unlikely; it may be come part
>> of libgpg-error, though.)
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ludo’.
>
> I'm not familiar with all the short words being used all the
> time. What is AIUI? "As I understand it"?

Yes; apologies for being cryptic without even noticing!

> I think I forgot to add more descriptions above this patch and
> the gnupg one.
>
> It should've read:
>
> This is a not very pleasant, but working hack
> to enable building >=gnupg-2.1.14 without wasting much time on
> having to built gpgscm in the gnupg package.  Whoever wants to
> fix this may step forward and do it, I am done with this as I
> need to focus on something else.
> This is left intentionally with comments for other people to
> improve in case we even use this. Else, someone can improve my
> gnupg-2.1.14 patch and make the gpgscm patc obsolete.

OK, but what do you think of the comments I made above?

Thanks,
Ludo’.