Re: Gs

[Ludovic Courtès]

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’.