[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: StumpWM package doesn't work

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: StumpWM package doesn't work
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:53:16 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)

Andy Patterson <address@hidden> skribis:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2016 21:43:23 +0100
> address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) wrote:
>> address@hidden (宋文武) skribis:
>> > Toni Reina <address@hidden> writes:
>> >  
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I'm trying to install `sbcl-stumpwm` package and looks like it
>> >> doesn't work correctly. It's installed with no errors, but it
>> >> doesn't generate the stumpwm binary file.
>> >>
>> >> The following package will be installed:
>> >>    sbcl-stumpwm
>> >> 0.9.9   /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.9.9
>> >>
>> >> ls /gnu/store/z92ri0kgjdavkp7llav1db0dia44sbid-sbcl-stumpwm-0.9.9  
>> >> -> lib  share  
>> >>  
>> >
>> > It's in the "bin" output of sbcl-stumpwm package, you can get it
>> > with:
>> >
>> > guix package -i sbcl-stumpwm:bin  
>> It might be clearer to have an “out” and a “lib” output (instead of
>> “bin” and “out”).  WDYT, Andy & 宋文武?
> I think that would basically shift the awkwardness from package
> installation over to package development, since it would then be
> required that all dependants of stumpwm use the lib output in the
> inputs field (but only on sbcl? - since ecl binaries aren't supported
> just yet). 

OK but there’s only one dependent:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix refresh -l sbcl-stumpwm
A single dependent package: sbcl-stumpwm-with-slynk-0.9.9
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

So I think it would be preferable to do it the way I suggest, no?

> I think the best way to clarify things would be to merge the outputs,
> although this carries a ~61MiB (~11MiB compressed) extra cost. In the
> case of stumpwm, I guess that the library isn't all that useful without
> the binary, so that might be ok.

Could be an option, but not great.

> Another alternative would be to create a separate package like with
> sbcl-stumpwm-with-slynk.
> I think what might be at the root of the issue though is that multiple
> outputs aren't discoverable enough. The page at
> <> doesn't list them
> AFAICT, and entering guix package -i sbcl-stumpwm into a shell and
> mashing tab only lists one entry for the package, when I think it
> should be two.

Good points!  We can certainly address these two issues quite easily.

Thanks for your feedback!


reply via email to

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