From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50173) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdZOh-0002DS-T3 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:09:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdZOg-0001zI-RH for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:09:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60836) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hdZOg-0001zB-NZ for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:09:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hdZOg-0001D6-Hj for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 08:09:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#36043] [PATCH] Add Geany Resent-Message-ID: From: Nicolas Goaziou References: <87muj1vvds.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <877e9zu4p2.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87ef3yqw9o.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> <87blywrm5s.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 13:16:17 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Arun Isaac's message of "Wed, 19 Jun 2019 01:15:07 +0530") Message-ID: <87fto5rfjy.fsf@nicolasgoaziou.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Arun Isaac Cc: 36043@debbugs.gnu.org Hello, Arun Isaac writes: > This isn't particularly bad news. In that thread, Scintilla has agreed > to allow an optional shared library build for people (like us) who > really want it. But, the issue has been closed because it has been many > years and no one has volunteered a patch. Scintilla has agreed to allow an optional shared library if there is also zero maintenance on their side (even when their ABI breaks). Since this would eventually require maintenance, the submitter dropped their request. > I think we should go ahead with our unbundled shared library Scintilla > package. We could also contribute our work upstream to Scintilla and > they seem willing to accept it. OTOH, using the static library is possibly (I failed at that, too) straightforward, in the sense that we would not patch Scintilla. It is worth considering this, too. In any case, I do not volunteer to contribute our work upstream as it is still above my pay grade. > The wording of both these licenses are so similar that I would consider > them to be effectively the same. But, I am not a lawyer, and I can't > claim to know too much about copyright. Should we raise this question > with guix-devel? Scintilla's license has one more clause, but we can ask Guix devel. > Note that some packages like gsl put the headers in /include/gsl because > they are meant to be included, say as > > #include > > and not as > > #include > > So, the include headers install location is dependent on the package's > conventions. > > As for nauty, their documentation specifies including as > > #include > > So, the headers should be installed to /include. OK. And what about the lib/, i.e., when should it be "/lib/name" instead of "/lib/" > Ok. Let's update our Scintilla package to 4.1.7. Shouldn't be a problem. Indeed. Let's first sort out the issues around license (I'm going to ask Guix devel about it) and bundling first. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou