[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#41778] [PATCH 0/3] Add ppsspp

From: Leo Prikler
Subject: [bug#41778] [PATCH 0/3] Add ppsspp
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 01:33:52 +0200
User-agent: Evolution 3.34.2


Am Dienstag, den 30.06.2020, 00:02 +0200 schrieb Nicolas Goaziou:
> Hello,
> Leo Prikler <> writes:
> > Following the release of version 1.10, I've updated my package
> > descriptions.  I've also been able to unbundle some sources, but
> > not
> > all of them.
> OOC, did you try to symlink sources instead of copying them?
No, but I'd imagine it would not work out great, because the source is
a git checkout in /gnu/store, which is read-only and it is compiled in-

> Note that you don't mention what is left to unbundle. Would it make
> sense to add this information?
I'm looking mostly at the contents of ext/ here, which has stuff we
already package, like cityhash among others.  A bit of context is given
in the unbundling snippet I use for glslang and spirv-cross, which I've
managed to unbundle, but the rest are not pulled in as submodules, so
it would require a `guix build --source` and manual analysis to sift
through all that.  
I don't think a less vague comment could improve this understanding
without risking to be invalidated at some point in the future.  Perhaps
I could clarify, that it's "mostly ext/", but even that is not
completely true, since upstream also has ffmpeg as a toplevel submodule
(which I don't pull in, instead using the flags they already provide
for using system ffmpeg).

> Otherwise, LGTM, barring the description of spirv-cross, where I
> suggest
> to drop the "NOTE:" part. It reminds me taisei package felt through
> the
> cracks. I'll apply it once spirv-cross is pushed.
To be fair, that's where I copied it from – I think I already mentioned
that.  I just updated the version and added some details in the comment
regarding failing tests and hence added my updated patch.  I also think
this description to be quite weird, but at the same time am unsure on
how to better rephrase it.  I will send an updated version of it once I
do come up with something better than just dropping the "NOTE:" part.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]