"Timo Wilken" <g...@twilken.net> writes: > Hi Tomas, > >> Look, I get that I must be annoying with the constant reopening of this >> issue, but I promise, this is the last time. When someone closes it >> again, I will just give up. But as I wrote in the control message last >> time (where I have CC-ed Ludovic), I do not believe this issue is >> resolved. Great, guile-yamlpp works now, but that is not this issue is >> about. > > I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the re-opening of the issue was an > intentional action by a human -- neither the debbugs web interface nor mumi > made this obvious to me. Your first control message doesn't seem to be > reproduced there.
Oh, you are right! Even when I know what message I am trying to find, I fail to do so. And since I have sent it using debbugs-gnu-make-control-message, I do not even have it in my sent mail group. Hm. > >> It is fine if you think that with-extensions should *not* touch >> GUILE_EXTENSIONS_PATH. I disagree, but fair enough, that is life. >> However, it would be nice to know why you think handling just 2 out of 3 >> environment variable controlling the loading in Guile is desirable. > > I think I agree with you -- all of this should be handled properly through the > GUILE_* environment variables, without having to patch every single Guile > package individually. With this patch, I mostly wanted to get guile-yamlpp to > work since I needed it for something. > > Guile packaging in Guix seems a little strange to me, in general -- e.g. the > treatment for disarchive in <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62008> might need to > be applied to the Shepherd as well: > > --8<---------------cut here--------------->8- > $ guix shell -CN --pure guile shepherd -- guile > scheme@(guile-user)> ,use (shepherd) > While executing meta-command: > no code for module (fibers) > --8<---------------cut here--------------->8- While we have *mostly* working approach for lot of cases, I still wonder whether we should get something along the lines of rpath for non-elf artifacts. That that I have any idea how it would be supposed to work. I *think* GCD 004 was supposed to address this somehow, but admit I was not following the debate too closely. I will put on my todo list to at least fix up the with-extensions. Tomas -- There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
