From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Thompson, David" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: boost: Allow for customizable build flags. Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:52:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20160613130808.20143-1-dthompson2@worcester.edu> <87eg80geng.fsf@gnu.org> 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]:45199) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCnpl-0001Z3-On for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:52:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCnpj-0003a8-Qk for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:52:44 -0400 Received: from mail-vk0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400c:c05::231]:36827) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bCnpj-0003ZX-M9 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 08:52:43 -0400 Received: by mail-vk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id u64so108198150vkf.3 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2016 05:52:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87eg80geng.fsf@gnu.org> 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: =?UTF-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > "Thompson, David" skribis: > >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Ricardo Wurmus >> wrote: >>> >>> David Thompson writes: >>> >>>> From: David Thompson >>>> >>>> * gnu/packages/boost.scm (boost)[arguments]: Extract build flags to #:= make-flags argument. >>> >>> If I understand correctly, this moves the let-bound =E2=80=9Cbuild-flag= s=E2=80=9D to >>> regular make-flags and reuses the default mechanism for passing >>> make-flags, right? >> >> Yes, exactly. With it I can easily create things like a statically >> linked variant. >> >> ~283 packages will need to rebuilt with this change, so maybe >> core-updates would be a good place to put this? Or would it be >> core-updates-next? I'm not sure anymore. :) > > Heh, I think we need a PhD student to work on the scheduling of changes > in the package DAG (seriously, I think that=E2=80=99d be a real topic!). There certainly are some subtleties. ;) > Please apply to =E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99 and we=E2=80=99ll get it b= uilt. Done, thanks! - Dave