[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Gs
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Gs |
Date: |
Sat, 23 Jul 2016 13:03:07 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Hi!
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.
This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can’t find the thread
now.
Thoughts?
Ludo’.
- Gs, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/22
- Re: Gs, Ricardo Wurmus, 2016/07/22
- Re: Gs,
Ludovic Courtès <=
- Re: Gs, Andreas Enge, 2016/07/23
- Re: Gs, Ludovic Courtès, 2016/07/25
- Re: Gs, Efraim Flashner, 2016/07/24
- Gs, Federico Beffa, 2016/07/23