[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug#43194] [PATCH] gnu: publicly define freedink-engine and freedink-da

From: Jesse Gibbons
Subject: [bug#43194] [PATCH] gnu: publicly define freedink-engine and freedink-data
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:13:17 -0600
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/68.12.0

Thank you for reviewing.

On 9/7/20 7:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

Jesse Gibbons <> skribis:

The attached patch publicly defines freedink-engine and
freedink-data. This resolves many of the issues described in
#43061. This patch, combined with patch #43193(sent earlier today),
can close #43061.
Now I’m confused: how does it help to make freedink-{engine,data}
Other than making guix more consistent in publicly defining game data packages (0ad-data and megaglest-data are public, and I like that -- I could write a good article about why, which I think would be a worthy entry in the guix blog, especially after #43193 is applied), there are 4 reasons for this change:

-> freedink-dfarc has problems locating the editor, installed in freedink-engine. I guess we could also fix this by making freedink-engine an input to freedink-dfarc and splicing a reference to it into the default configuration?

-> Unless freedink-data is public, `guix build --source freedink-data` fails, and `guix build --sources=all freedink` does not build a source for freedink-data. I think future users who want to alter the freedink data would appreciate the ability to use guix to get the data. Also, it's pointless to use the editor on the installed freedink-data because it's read-only when it's installed.

-> Back when I was fixing freedink, I found it difficult to debug without freedink-engine being public, because freedink does nothing with the freedink-engine source.

-> Freedink-engine installs desktop files to launch freedink without freedink-dfarc or the console. This is actually a new issue I will address in an updated patch: the desktop files fail because the data location is not hard-coded. I think the freedink desktop file can be patched if freedink-data is an input, but, like I said above, it's pointless to use dinkedit on a read-only directory, so I intend to remove it.

>From 583215aced9b557d6f4e54b290e788d33880c03c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jesse Gibbons <>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 21:38:24 -0600
Subject: [PATCH v1 1/1] gnu: publicly define freedink-engine and freedink-data

* gnu/packages/games.scm: (freedink-engine): make public
(freedink-data): make public

  (define-public freedink
    ;; This is a wrapper that tells the engine where to find the data.
-  (package (inherit freedink-engine)
+  (package ;(inherit freedink-engine)
Is it intended?  Looks like inheriting avoids duplicating fields, no?

Oops! I did not intend to leave (inherit freedink-engine) in a comment. I initially commented it out because freedink does nothing with the source anyway, and I wanted to see what would happen if I removed the inheritance. I guess I forgot to remove the semicolon and other additions.

As noted above, it is easiest to use freedink-dfarc to launch the editor, but freedink-dfarc must be told what editor to use, and it is easier to identify it if the editor is installed in a profile (or included as an input). Also, freedink-engine includes (broken) desktop files. Since freedink just installs a wrapper script around the engine, and does not include the editor or any desktop files, perhaps it would be better to put the wrapper script in freedink-engine (thus fixing the desktop file), completely remove the freedink package, and rename "freedink-engine" to just "freedink"? But freedink-dfarc would still need to be able to launch freedink without pointing to any read-only data if a user wants to test the edited freedink data.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]