[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Sun, 24 Jul 2016 09:43:06 +0300
On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Andreas Enge <address@hidden> skribis:
> > the following commit
> > commit eb354bdacbf4154ec66038dac07f19bf4ced1fad
> > Author: Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden>
> > Date: Mon May 9 15:54:34 2016 +0200
> > gnu: ghostscript: Do not build the statically-linked 'gs' binary.
> > * gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (ghostscript)[arguments]: Remove
> > 'build-so' and 'install-so' phases. Replace 'build' and 'install'
> > phases.
> Ahem, I plaid guilty.
> > removes "gs" from the ghostscript package. However, this is the usual
> > program
> > that people expect. For instance, unison uses it for building its
> > documentation. Is there a dynamically linked binary which replaces gs?
> > If yes, should we add a symbolic link?
> I think so.
> For the current solution (avoiding a full rebuild), see commit
> 61dc82d9b90d0545739c30bfc33003bd062071f0. LilyPond could hard-code the
> file name of ‘gsc’.
> Alternately, we could provide a wrapper containing a ‘gs’ symlink.
I think this was the option I liked the most, I don't believe any
functionality is lost with a gs->gsc symlink, and it would still keep
the reduced size of the closure.
> This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can’t find the thread
I think we mostly discussed it on IRC
Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
Description: PGP signature
- Gs, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/22
- Re: Gs, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/07/22
- Re: Gs, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/23
- Re: Gs, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/23
- Re: Gs, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/25
- Re: Gs,
Efraim Flashner <=
- Gs, Federico Beffa, 2016/07/23