From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roel Janssen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] gnu: Add r-rbgl. Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87eg4gkohw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87k2eds89x.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2e8mc9q.fsf@elephly.net> <87zin419gv.fsf@gnu.org> <87intsma6c.fsf@elephly.net> <87y42o15zd.fsf@gnu.org> <8760psm4cg.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43458) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blybe-00060Z-JM for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:27:35 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1blybZ-0004zE-KN for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:27:33 -0400 In-reply-to: <8760psm4cg.fsf@elephly.net> 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: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >>> Okay. I’ll make the change before pushing. >> >> If you want I can do the modifications as well and push. Saves you some >> valuable time :) > > Yes, that would be best. I forgot that you already have push access! :) Great, then I'll take care of it. >>> I didn’t try to swap out the sources. In my opinion this should be >>> treated as a fork. It’s a subset of Boost with R-specific adaptations. >>> Other R packages may depend on this particular “flavour” and might not >>> work well otherwise. >>> >>> If someone made the effort to change this, it would need to be checked >>> each time we updated our Boost package. I don’t think we have the >>> infrastructure to keep track of these things, so I’d rather err on the >>> side of keeping things as upstream has them. >> >> Right. I didn't compare the original boost sources with the one >> provided with the RBGL package, so I didn't know there were differences >> in code. > > I should state that I also don’t *know* if there are differences. But I > know that “r-bh”, for example, does something similar and we decided not > to make it reuse the upstream Boost sources for similar reasons. Okay. Then I will generate a diff between Boost-1.61.0 and this to see whether there are any differences. I could then add a comment to the package to state whether this is the original Boost source or not. >> I agree to keep the "forked" Boost code instead of using the upstream >> Boost code for additional reasons: >> >> 1. It makes the package recipe much simpler. >> 2. It keeps the package as the maintainer of RBGL meant to distribute >> it. The compile-time overhead is manageable (building the package on my >> machine takes less than ten minutes). >> >> I will take care of upstreaming this package and the other six I proposed. > > Okay. Please take a quick look at my comments before pushing. Of course. Your comments are much appreciated. I need to slow down a bit and think more about the synopsis and descriptions of packages.. :) Thanks! Kind regards, Roel Janssen