GNU bug report logs -
#45954
Telegram-CLI
Previous Next
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Leo!
> I didn't notice this before, but is there a reason to package this
> version over 1.3.1?
Yeah, there are quite a lot of improvements after the 1.3.1 release.
> Please stop trying to use this as a snippet to mean "the root of the
> source and build directory". It is extremely obscure and people are
> already using "../source" just fine. (Just do an rgrep if you aren't
> convinced.)
Fixed in v8.
>> Hmm. I tried but couldn't come up with a way to do it like that. :(
> You can still try harder for v8 ;)
I tried different ways but the arguments key-words between gnu and copy
differ a lot. I am unable use key-words from both build systems at the
same time. Like using #:configure-flags (from gnu) and #:install (from
copy).
Also, I spent significant amount time to come up the phase I have. So if
there are no critical issues, I would like to keep it as-is. :-)
>> The script may only be used on foreign-distro for now. For guix
>> system,
>> we need to define a service for it.
>>
>> Also, running telegram-cli doesn't require daemon, but vice-versa.
>> The
>> daemon is intended to be a complimentary feature to run telegram-cli
>> on
>> headless server.
> In that case, does the daemon script have any value of its own? Given
> that the latest release of telegram-cli is about six years old, I doubt
> there is – foreign distros should already have it in their repos and
> Guix as a package manager makes no claim to manage system stuff like
> services on foreign distros.
>
>> The file is a run-time script.
> That means literally nothing. The wrap phase exists for a reason, some
> programs and script are even wrapped twice.
>
>> Using (getenv "PATH") will instead use the value of PATH inside the
>> build environment.
> So you'll inadvertently have some native-inputs in it, is what you're
> trying to say? Of course, there are better ways of wrapping PATH, but
> in this case wouldn't it be wise to limit it to just the expected
> paths? Again, assuming that there is even merit in shipping this file,
> which is yet to be proven.
I don't know what I was thinking. XD. It is pretty useless to ship. I
removed it in v8.
Regards,
RG.
[OpenPGP_0x5F5816647F8BE551.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]
[OpenPGP_signature (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]
This bug report was last modified 4 years and 109 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.