GNU bug report logs - #64446
[PATCH] gnu: Add bliss.

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Andreas Enge <andreas <at> enge.fr>
To: David Elsing <david.elsing <at> posteo.net>
Cc: 64446 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, efraim <at> flashner.co.il, bavier <at> posteo.net
Subject: [bug#64446] [PATCH] gnu: Add bliss.
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 18:10:27 +0200

Hello,

I have spent quite a long time on this package, trying to simplify your
recipe.

Am Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:21:32PM +0000 schrieb David Elsing:
> +          (add-after 'unpack 'fix-string-macro
> +            (lambda _
> +              (substitute* "bliss.cc"
> +                (("\"__DATE__\"") "\" __DATE__ \""))))

This so far is only a warning with newer gcc versions, so we do not really
need it.

> +          ;; Move headers under the bliss/ prefix
> +          (add-after 'unpack 'move-headers
> +            (lambda _
> +              (substitute* (find-files "." "\\.(h|hh|cc)$")
> +                (("#include \"(.*)\"" all path)
> +                 (string-append "#include <bliss/" path ">")))
> +              (mkdir-p "bliss")
> +              (for-each
> +               (lambda (file)
> +                 (rename-file file
> +                              (string-append "bliss/" (basename file))))
> +               (find-files "." "\\.(h|hh)$"))))

All surprising phases need more comments for their rationale.
I added this:
          ;; Move headers under the bliss/ prefix. This is a Guix choice,
          ;; since the header names are sufficiently generic to cause
          ;; confusions with other packages ("heap.hh").

> +          (add-after 'move-headers 'disable-gmp
> +            (lambda _
> +              (substitute* "bliss/bignum.hh"
> +                (("defined\\(BLISS_USE_GMP\\)") "0"))))

This looks like it is not needed if using the Makefile.

> +          (replace 'build

Here I am not convinced. You end up rewriting the Makefile in Guile.
The Makefile works, but it tries to create a binary "bliss", which
collides with the new file for the headers. This could be solved by
moving the content of the 'move-headers phase between the installation
of the bliss binary (after which it can be deleted) and the installation
of the headers.

Moreover, the Makefile does not create a dynamic, but only a static
library, and your build phase adds a dynamic library. Is this our role
as packagers?

According to the time stamps of the files inside the .zip, the software
dates from 2015 and is apparently unmaintained (otherwise I would have
suggested to get in touch with the developers to improve the Makefile).

So I wonder whether this software meets the quality standards for inclusion
into Guix.

Hm, I just found a new version here:
   https://users.aalto.fi/~tjunttil/bliss/index.html :
"Compiling
In Linux and macOS, one can use GNU Make to compile the bliss executable, as well as the static and shared libraries, with (...)"!

And the author is here:
   https://users.aalto.fi/~tjunttil/

Would you like to give it another try, David? And maybe discuss with the
author whether they would be willing to implement the bliss/ subdirectory
for the headers? (Given that there are now separate src/ and build/
subdirectories that would be quite easy.) And add an "install" target?

Andreas

Previous Next

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