bug#34470: [PATCH 4/8] gnu: gdm: Use absolute path for gnome-session.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Timothy Sample <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> * gnu/packages/gnome.scm (gdm)[arguments]: Modify the pre-configure
>>>>> phase to substitute in the absolute path of gnome-session.
>>>>> [inputs]: Add gnome-session.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> GDM does seem to work without that dependency though (on current
>> master); or is there missing functionality?
>
> It turns out you committed this patch to master as
> def6d6b61685f69421df80cb524ba94da5dadd42.

Oh, true; two weeks of vacations and everything is forgotten.  :-)

> If I revert the commit, GDM does not work (without GNOME installed in
> the system profile).
>
> If there is a way to work around GNOME Session, I’m not clever enough to
> think of it.  :(

Alright, well so be it.

Then I guess the next step is to stare at ‘guix size gdm’ in search of
ways to trim the closure.  It might not be that hard actually:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix size gdm |head
store item                                                       total    self
/gnu/store/bvnj04sqiwc1gcis29swk6likyc5dw8f-llvm-6.0.1             268.1   
104.5   7.7%
/gnu/store/n2p1zs14y89lwkg9da68y12pc10c6sw9-gcc-5.5.0              161.9    
93.7   6.9%
/gnu/store/b7fqhszxl02g6pfm3vw6b3cjz472qrly-python-3.7.0           182.8    
74.6   5.5%
/gnu/store/j6g996l8kxxv8c76a9c61n3gi4s0wvdr-mesa-18.3.1            360.5    
63.8   4.7%
/gnu/store/dna8kpb00kq176rz8x69yy4j33my2q55-perl-5.28.0            146.3    
58.2   4.3%
/gnu/store/g87hamjyipk1j6dfq5pjfzfnfb64spbv-python2-2.7.15         163.6    
56.6   4.2%
/gnu/store/fh42kncsw279yn24kcqiydmqbzg3iv3a-mozjs-52.0-1.6507e63   209.6    
54.0   4.0%
/gnu/store/f2y93basw0ykg7spgxbxsy95l64fhbc9-gtk+-3.24.2            702.4    
45.5   3.4%
/gnu/store/9alic3caqhay3h8mx4iihpmyj6ymqpcx-guile-2.2.4            121.9    
44.4   3.3%
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

That GCC is out of place and that LLVM is surely too big.

>> If we must have it though, let’s have it, and we can then see how to
>> trim that closure.
>
> I looked at this briefly when you first brought it up, because I thought
> there would be something blindingly obvious that I could cut out.
> Unfortunately, I didn’t find anything.  It probably can be tightened up,
> it just needs to examined a bit more carefully.

Yup, we’ll see.

Closing this issue now anyway.

Thank you!

Ludo’.