GNU bug report logs -
#39263
[PATCH 0/2] Update Godot
Previous Next
Reported by: Timotej Lazar <timotej.lazar <at> araneo.si>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2020 14:52:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Done: Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Wed, 29 Jan 2020 08:00:27 +0000
with message-id <87v9ouofok.fsf <at> cbaines.net>
and subject line Re: [bug#39263] [PATCH 2/2] gnu: godot: Unbundle some dependencies.
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #39263,
regarding [PATCH 0/2] Update Godot
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
39263: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=39263
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
Hi,
these patches update Godot to latest stable version 3.1.2 and unbundle
bullet, pcre2 and zstd libraries.
Thanks!
Timotej Lazar (2):
gnu: godot: Update to 3.1.2.
gnu: godot: Unbundle some dependencies.
gnu/packages/game-development.scm | 26 +++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--
2.25.0
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
[Message part 4 (text/plain, inline)]
Timotej Lazar <timotej.lazar <at> araneo.si> writes:
> Thanks for the feedback! I am sending updated patches after this reply.
>
> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> [2020-01-25 09:16:08+0000]:
>> I did have a look if the package builds with the mbedtls-apache
>> package, rather than using the included source code, and it looks to.
>> Although I'm aware that [1] says there are modifications.
>
> The two Godot patches for mbedtls don’t seem to be relevant to Guix, so
> I replaced the bundled copy with the mbedtls-apache package. I don’t
> have a use case to test this, but the minimal example from the
> HTTPRequest tutorial seems to work OK with an HTTPS URI.
Wonderful :)
> Christopher Baines <mail <at> cbaines.net> [2020-01-25 09:18:33+0000]:
>> One thought I had here is that it would be more rigorous to have a list
>> of directories that are kept, and anything not on the list is deleted.
>> That way it's harder for new thirdparty dependencies to sneak in.
>
> Makes sense. As you suggest, I flipped the logic for removing thirdparty
> files: whitelist preserved files and remove everything else. The snippet
> can only preserve direct children of the thirdparty/ directory, which
> keeps it simple but perhaps not flexible enough in the long run.
Great, this looks really useful.
> Do we generally prefer whitelisting bundled files? Most packages I have
> seen (and written) do the opposite and list the files to remove. Maybe
> we could add a guideline somewhere? Or point me to the one I missed. :)
I don't know if it's written down somewhere, all I can say is it
occurred to me when looking at the package definition.
I've pushed the 3 latest patches you sent to master, so they're included
in 18f8e935e85a99d5c284c0a6b719351a402ada21.
Thanks,
Chris
[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]
This bug report was last modified 5 years and 174 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.