GNU bug report logs -
#36043
[PATCH] Add Geany
Previous Next
Full log
Message #35 received at 36043 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
>> I think we should go ahead with our unbundled shared library Scintilla
>> package. We could also contribute our work upstream to Scintilla and
>> they seem willing to accept it.
>
> OTOH, using the static library is possibly (I failed at that, too)
> straightforward, in the sense that we would not patch Scintilla. It is
> worth considering this, too.
I would prefer the shared library because it is more efficient on
memory/disk usage and it seems cleaner and more modular. However,
scintilla is a small library and is not used by too many packages,
therefore the advantages are small. Meanwhile, patching scintilla to
build a shared library is messy and using the static library would
indeed be easier. But, if we are using the static library, why should we
unbundle at all?
I don't know if Guix has a clear policy on these matters. I think we
should consult guix-devel and ask for others' opinions.
> In any case, I do not volunteer to contribute our work upstream as it is
> still above my pay grade.
No problem, I understand.
> Scintilla's license has one more clause, but we can ask Guix devel.
I guess we should use the hpnd license now, as discussed in guix-devel.
> And what about the lib/, i.e., when should it be "/lib/name" instead
> of "/lib/"
I don't have as good an answer for this. A quick look at my
~/.guix-profile/lib shows almost all packages having their shared
libraries in /lib, not in /lib/name. And, just including scintilla in
geany's inputs and passing '-lscintilla' in geany_LDFLAGS was enough for
the linker to find libscintilla.so correctly. So, I assumed I had done
it right. :-P
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 301 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.