Re: Gs

[Efraim Flashner]

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> 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.

I think this was the option I liked the most, I don't believe any
functionality is lost with a gs->gsc symlink, and it would still keep
the reduced size of the closure.

> 
> This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can’t find the thread
> now.

I think we mostly discussed it on IRC

> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Ludo’.
> 

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <address@hidden>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature