Re: [PATCH] gnu: Simplify LLVM build.

[Mark H Weaver]

Hi Andy,

Thank you for this most excellent, radical simplification of our llvm
package!  However, I agree with Eric about the commit log.

Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon 17 Aug 2015 10:43, Eric Bavier <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> From db066d194d3b8359eddd0149234bfad29c11542d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
>>> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:26:07 +0200
>>> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: Simplify LLVM build.
>>> 
>>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm): Simplify build.
>>
>> Could this perhaps be a bit more descriptive?  It also doesn't
>> follow our standard.  Maybe:
>>
>> gnu: llvm: Simplify build rpath handling.
>>
>> * gnu/packages/llvm.scm (llvm)[arguments]: Remove phases argument.
>>   Add to configure-flags "-DCMAKE_SKIP_BUILD_RPATH=FALSE" and
>>   "-DCMAKE_BUILD_WITH_INSTALL_RPATH=FALSE".
>>
>> `~Eric
>
> It could :)  However I do not see how the change you mention would be
> indicated by the GCS, HACKING, or guix.texi.  As per the GCS I think
> this falls under "simple changes".

Whether changes are "simple" is a matter of judgment, I suppose.  In
this case you've replaced 18 out of 45 lines (40%) of the package
description, the entire customization of the cmake-build-system process.
Under Ludovic's leadership, we strive for high standards in our commit
logs, and I for one am thankful for that when looking over the logs.

> If Guix has additional requirements they should be indicated
> somewhere; did I miss the document?

No, you didn't miss it.  We have a lot to do, and writing precise
documentation of our coding standards is not something we've yet found
time for.  I'm not sure it's something that could be precisely
documented even if we tried.

I'd like to push your commit with Eric's proposed commit log.
Is that okay?

     Mark