[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1.
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
[bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1. |
Date: |
Fri, 28 Aug 2020 14:57:16 -0400 |
Hello Guix,
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
> Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com skribis:
>
>> From: Morgan Smith <Morgan.J.Smith@outlook.com>
>>
>> * gnu/packages/emacs.scm (emacs): Update to 27.1.
>> [arguments]: Add --with-cairo and --with-modules to #:configure-flags. Add
>> restore-emacs-pdump phase.
>> [inputs]: Add cairo, libxaw, jansson, gmp, and harfbuzz. Remove imagemagick
>> and libxft.
>> [native-inputs]: Add texlive.
>> (emacs-wide-int): Mark as deprecated package.
>> (emacs-no-x):
>> [arguments]: Add --with-jpeg=no --with-gif=no --with-tiff=no
>> to #:configure-flags.
>
> I see that Mark committed a similar patch just yesterday:
>
>
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=36a09d185343375a5cba370431870f9c4435d623
>
> I suppose Mark hadn’t seen the ongoing discussion.
Indeed, I hadn't. Gah, I'm terribly sorry about this. I had done some
quick web searches for preexisting work on this, but clearly they were
insufficient, and I've never subscribed to the patches list. In the
future, I'll know not to rely on web search engines for this.
> Mark, Morgan: could you see if there’s anything we’re missing from the
> patch Morgan submitted?
Looking now, here are the main differences I see between our patches:
* I found that I had to remove the 'restore-emacs-pdump' phase from most
of the other emacs variants, namely the ones that use
'gnu-build-system', because otherwise the inherited
'restore-emacs-pdump' phase would fail. Morgan's patch seems not to
consider most of the other emacs variants, and I'm not sure if they
were tested. I briefly tested all of them except for 'guile-emacs'.
* Morgan removed the snippet code that deletes "eshell/esh-groups.el",
whereas I replaced it with a call to 'find-files' to remove it only if
present, as the previous comment suggested. I'm not sure if this is
still needed, though.
* Morgan's patch adds "libxaw" to inputs and "texinfo" to native-inputs.
What's the rationale for these?
* I added 'pango' to the inputs, because the Emacs NEWS mentioned that
Pango was used for font rendering when "--with-cairo" is used.
However, it may be that "pango" finds its way into the build inputs
without being explicitly mentioned.
* Morgan removed 'libxft' from the inputs of 'emacs', whereas I didn't.
This was an oversight on my part. However, if we remove it, it's
possible that we might need to add it back to 'emacs-no-x-toolkit'.
The references that I see to Pango in the Emacs code are within
"#ifdef HAVE_GTK3".
* In 'emacs-no-x', my patch removes the new graphical library inputs
(cairo, pango, and harfbuzz) and the "--with-cairo" flag, whereas
Morgan's patch leaves "cairo" and "harfbuzz" as inputs, and overwrites
the inherited configure-flags to be precisely ("--with-jpeg=no"
"--with-gif=no" "--with-tiff=no"), apparently discarding the inherited
"--with-modules" and "--disable-build-details" flags.
* Morgan made 'emacs-wide-int' into a deprecated package, whereas I
thought that it might still be useful. My rationale was this: from a
brief skim, it looks like '--with-wide-int' might make *immediate*
integers wider, which for some applications might perform much better
than the heap-allocated arbitrary-size integers supported by Emacs 27.
However, I didn't look carefully at this.
* I updated "emacs-exec-path.patch" and removed
"emacs27-exec-path.patch", whereas Morgan's patch keeps both files and
possibly leaves "emacs-exec-path.patch" orphaned.
* I updated the patches to apply cleanly to Emacs 27, although this was
not strictly needed.
* I updated 'notmuch' in the previous commit to a version that builds
successfully with Emacs 27.
Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> wrote:
> I confirm that with Mark's commit
> emacs-clojure-mode and emacs-elisp-refs are also broken.
Sorry about that. If the Emacs 27 update breaks important packages, it
might be that reverting it is the proper action. If the maintainers
decide to do this, I would not object.
Best regards,
Mark
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v2] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., (continued)
- [bug#42738] [Work in progress] gnu: emacs: update to 27.1, Michael Rohleder, 2020/08/18
- [bug#42738] [Work in progress] gnu: emacs: update to 27.1, Jack Hill, 2020/08/19
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v3] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Jack Hill, 2020/08/19
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Morgan . J . Smith, 2020/08/27
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Jack Hill, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Ludovic Courtès, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Brett Gilio, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Jack Hill, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1.,
Mark H Weaver <=
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Morgan Smith, 2020/08/28
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Mark H Weaver, 2020/08/29
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Brett Gilio, 2020/08/29
- [bug#42738] [PATCH v4] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1., Giovanni Biscuolo, 2020/08/29
- [bug#42738] [Work in progress] gnu: emacs: update to 27.1, Diego Nicola Barbato, 2020/08/19
- [bug#42738] [Work in progress] gnu: emacs: update to 27.1, Michael Rohleder, 2020/08/19
[bug#42738] [PATCH v2] gnu: emacs: Update to 27.1. (fwd), Jack Hill, 2020/08/18