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: simple-scan: Update to 3.19.91. Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2016 14:28:03 +0100 Message-ID: <87fuvzdbmk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1457474675-21775-1-git-send-email-tobias.geerinckx.rice@gmail.com> <20160308230232.GA24107@jasmine> <20160309000506.GD24107@jasmine> <20160309013937.GA25866@jasmine> <20160309074914.GA18130@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]:48728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ade9r-0008CW-CA for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:28:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ade9m-0002YS-D0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 08:28:11 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160309074914.GA18130@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Wed, 9 Mar 2016 02:49:14 -0500") 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-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari skribis: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 08:39:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:25:04AM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >> > On 09/03/2016, Leo Famulari wrote: >> > > [...] pass to ./configure '--disable-packagekit'. Would that work? >> >=20 >> > So do =E2=80=98we=E2=80=99: >> >=20 >> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >> > > '(#:configure-flags '("--disable-packagekit") >>=20 >> Oops! Serves me right for trying to squeeze this review in earlier ;) >>=20 >> > There are various ways to code this, but none that don't amount to >> > deleting (generated) source files.[1] >>=20 >> I didn't realize this was generated C code. In that case it's closer to >> a compiled binary than source code, don't you think? Can we delete all >> the generated files and rebuild them from source? > > Anyways, that is probably something to look into later. I think it makes > sense to do this update, remove that file, and include a link to the bug > report with a bit of context. > > Does anyone have any objections to that plan? I=E2=80=99m not sure I fully grasped everything, but the plan looks good. = And since it=E2=80=99s an update and the problem was already there, let=E2=80= =99s not annoy Tobias more than this. :-) Eventually, I agree it=E2=80=99ll be best to remove the generated C files, though. Ludo=E2=80=99.