Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add libjxr.

[ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)]

Kei Kebreau <kei@openmailbox.org> skribis:

> ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
>> Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name> skribis:
>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 04:33:18AM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> >> 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?
>>
>> Regarding the choice between writing our own installation phase in
>> Scheme and using this CMake thing instead, I think we should choose the
>> most concise approach (in terms of lines of code).
>>
>> If the winner here is the CMake patch, then indeed, we should take the
>> patch from Debian rather than from a message board (and include
>> provenance information in the patch, as you wrote.)
>>
>> That said, I suspect an ‘install’ phase in Scheme would be more concise
>> than this new CMakeLists.txt (134 lines).
>>
>> Kei: WDYT?
>>
>
> I have been working on writing our own installation phase, and it looks
> like it will be more concise.

Cool, thanks!

> However, the patches need to be in DOS format to apply. The patch
> doesn't seem to carry these line returns, which leads me to believe
> that a standard git configuration won't accept them. Is there way
> around this?

But that’s unrelated to removing the CMakeLists.txt patch and adding
your own install phase, right?  :-)

From the description I’m not sure exactly what the problem is, but
perhaps the ‘--binary’ option of ‘patch’ can help?  You can specify it
in ‘patch-flags’:

  https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/origin-Reference.html

Ludo’.