From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add libjxr. Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:40:17 +0200 Message-ID: <87bmy4bni6.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87eg39qvjh.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20161021235859.GA9570@jasmine> <87a8dwrdf5.fsf@openmailbox.org> <20161023212929.GB6318@jasmine> 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]:53879) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07OS-0006qz-Gw for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07OO-0005qr-GF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20161023212929.GB6318@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:29:29 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari 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 >> >> +Forwarded: https://jxrlib.codeplex.com/discussions/440294 >> > >> > Why doesn't upstream's build system work? >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> [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 =E2=80=98install=E2=80=99 phase in Scheme would be = more concise than this new CMakeLists.txt (134 lines). Kei: WDYT? Thanks! Ludo=E2=80=99.