GNU bug report logs - #47027
Disarchive package

Previous Next

Full log

Message #20 received at 47027 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at>
Cc: Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>, 47027 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#47027: Disarchive package
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 23:17:24 +0100

Hi!

Leo Prikler <leo.prikler <at> student.tugraz.at> skribis:

> I've checked and the package seems to build fine with Guile 3.0.2.  I
> think the bytecode mismatch happens, because Guix compiles stuff with
> 3.0.2 by default, but users have 3.0.5 in their system, which is not
> bytecode-compatible.  (As an exception, Guix itself seems to be
> compiled with Guile 3.0.5 for performance reasons).
>
> I think it would be fine to add with Guile 3.0.2, perhaps adding a note
> that Guile 3.0.5 will effectively be required to use Guix interop?  If
> not, could you provide a script, that breaks in a way other than
> recompiling the mismatching code?

I tend to agree here: I don’t think ‘guile-3.0-latest’ is needed in this
case.  The only case where you need it is if it depends on a library,
such as Guix, that is itself built with ‘guile-3.0-latest’.

> As far as the location is concerned, I personally do not like adding
> too many single-package files.  Would it make sense to add this to
> compression.scm (like gzip) or backup.scm (like libarchive)?

Maybe there’ll be other packages eventually in archival.scm, like the
SWH Python code?  It’s fine with me, but I don’t have a strong opinion.

Ludo’.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.