From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id IA0MJvBduV7bNwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:15:12 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id yA3AI/5duV6KPQAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:15:26 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF14940BFF for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 14:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36838 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jY9DJ-0006Xr-6k for larch@yhetil.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:15:25 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:55620) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jY994-0008FT-Ss for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:11:02 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41349) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jY994-0003lA-GT for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:11:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jY994-0004Dl-B1 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:11:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#40492] [PATCH] gnu: Add meshlab Resent-From: Ekaitz Zarraga Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:11:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 40492 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: "40492\\@debbugs.gnu.org" <40492@debbugs.gnu.org> Received: via spool by 40492-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B40492.158920625716214 (code B ref 40492); Mon, 11 May 2020 14:11:02 +0000 Received: (at 40492) by debbugs.gnu.org; 11 May 2020 14:10:57 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52895 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jY98z-0004DS-Gd for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:10:57 -0400 Received: from mail1.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.18]:26699) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jY98x-0004DB-LG for 40492@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 11 May 2020 10:10:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 14:10:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=elenq.tech; s=protonmail; t=1589206249; bh=u1LwGvdQX66omQxJzrFS1+KcPmlwejxU1PoethXSXcc=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Gi68k5ugxjld7JmjYWOeC7aiImIxR06YiqOlVqAA9R4j/aXJL9/N9PZoycbHO4+iP c5XuDYTyMTy/rQJINOic1ri/SXeAEdM7tBo0W5phhtqzOpyzT1a+YDsCfWAhq3k9fe 49AhP7fQdUXRJbdzPXsy7gv94k6g1KW1qmCODuAY= From: Ekaitz Zarraga Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87a72eiqu9.fsf@gnu.org> References: <_UXapokzwPRYl41j0bjkPGSDUNXahWNWsEn72py7ch7Rd6DBsxW9B8rw8wTbmzj1O2HfWXz7XLbEdWCYQsFCa5DgMlGn0CKVPr779J2PFuo=@elenq.tech> <87wo67ti07.fsf@gnu.org> <87blneynu0.fsf@gnu.org> <87h7wqcxdv.fsf@gnu.org> <5Xe04GEft3Gf5wO_7lIfdvvkO2Vt2ow9ykrLBPWOxgnkYRCbbLl1fdhPmdc2iO6JL8ZMyQA6zRGlz_7I1Hi-4DrrdnR9HySNCVrxj3ZI3R0=@elenq.tech> <87a72eiqu9.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Ekaitz Zarraga Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Scanner: scn0 X-Spam-Score: 0.09 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (rsa verify failed) header.d=elenq.tech header.s=protonmail header.b=Gi68k5ug; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=elenq.tech (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org X-Scan-Result: default: False [0.09 / 13.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[ekaitz@elenq.tech]; GENERIC_REPUTATION(0.00)[-0.54013375495489]; DWL_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; R_DKIM_REJECT(1.00)[elenq.tech:s=protonmail]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.51.188.0/24:c]; IP_REPUTATION_HAM(0.00)[asn: 22989(0.07), country: US(-0.00), ip: 209.51.188.17(-0.54)]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.50)[cached: eggs.gnu.org]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[elenq.tech:-]; MAILLIST(-0.20)[mailman]; FORGED_RECIPIENTS_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_FAIL(0.00)[209.51.188.17:server fail]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:22989, ipnet:209.51.188.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; TAGGED_FROM(0.00)[larch=yhetil.org]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[ekaitz@elenq.tech,guix-patches-bounces@gnu.org]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; URIBL_BLOCKED(0.00)[gnu.org:email]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_LIST_UNSUB(-0.01)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.51.188.17:from]; RCVD_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; FORGED_SENDER_MAILLIST(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[elenq.tech : SPF not aligned (relaxed),none] X-TUID: VjEGAtqr98uG Kaixo, On Monday, May 11, 2020 2:44 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Egun on! > > > Second step will be to fix the issue. > > Next I need to figure out what to do with the rest of the libraries. Sh= ould we package all of them? Some of them don't look interesting by themsel= ves, maybe it's better to keep them bundled. > > Ideally, yes. Now, if some of these libraries have no other users, we > can make an exception. Understood. Weird stuff like openkinect is not going to be used anywhere else, right? := D > > I also have a question: > > Most of the libraries that are bundled in meshlab have very old version= s (qhull's version is from 2003). How does Guix handle breaking changes in = libraries? > > If meshlab doesn't support newer libraries, what do we need to do? > > We could still unbundle for example qhull and, if needed, package that > older version that Meshlab need. In parallel, we can report the issue > to the Meshlab developers so that future versions can use the current > qhull. Ok! > I realize this is quite some work, so you=E2=80=99re welcome to improve t= hings > incrementally. If you don=E2=80=99t manage to deal with all the bundled > libraries, then you can still send an updated patch and we=E2=80=99ll see= where > we are and perhaps push the version you arrived at. I attach what I currently have. It's a working package with most recent ver= sion of Meshlab (overwrites older patch) with some of the libraries unbundl= ed. It has some extra comments about bundled libs that may be better to rem= ove if it's released, but I'll leave that to your opinion. I'll keep doing this because it's important for me. Meshlab is a very power= ful tool and we almost have it! ty, Ekaitz