Ricardo Wurmus <ricardo.wur...@mdc-berlin.de> writes:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Ben Woodcroft <b.woodcr...@uq.edu.au> skribis:
>>
>>> But would it be possible to include the scripting language bindings,
>>> something along these lines?
>>>
>>> + (arguments
>>> + `(#:configure-flags '("--enable-ruby-binding"
>>> + "--enable-python-binding"
>>> + "--enable-perl-binding")
>>
>> There’s the usual space/popularity tradeoff to take into account: adding
>> them all makes the package’s closure much larger, so it’s important to
>> add only the useful bindings by default.
>>
>> Ideally, the .so for these bindings could be moved to separate outputs
>> (like we did for the “tk” output of Python), but it’s not always easy to
>> do.
>
> In this case it seems to be very easy to separate the bindings into
> different outputs as the flags take an optional path.
>
> However, the test for the Perl bindings does not pass:
>
> /gnu/store/czs63sm4l0s4a56ab38dqvkx19yzylbq-perl-5.16.1/bin/perl: symbol
> lookup error:
> /tmp/nix-build-jellyfish-2.2.4.drv-0/jellyfish-2.2.4/.libs/libjellyfish-2.0.so.2:
> undefined symbol: pthread_create
> FAIL tests/swig_perl.sh (exit status: 127)
>
> Maybe the library needs another linker flag? I’ll play with this later
> and see if I can make it work. If not I’ll leave the Perl bindings (and
> the “perl” output) away for now.
I pushed a version with Ruby and Python bindings placed in different
outputs. “guix size” confirmed that there are no references to Ruby or
Python in the plain output.
I did not add the Perl bindings.
Thanks for the suggestions!
~~ Ricardo
