On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 02:28:03PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> skribis:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 08:39:37PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 01:25:04AM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> >> > On 09/03/2016, Leo Famulari <l...@famulari.name> wrote:
> >> > > [...] pass to ./configure '--disable-packagekit'. Would that work?
> >> >
> >> > So do ‘we’:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:04:35PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
> >> > > '(#:configure-flags '("--disable-packagekit")
> >>
> >> Oops! Serves me right for trying to squeeze this review in earlier ;)
> >>
> >> > There are various ways to code this, but none that don't amount to
> >> > deleting (generated) source files.[1]
> >>
> >> I didn't realize this was generated C code. In that case it's closer to
> >> a compiled binary than source code, don't you think? Can we delete all
> >> the generated files and rebuild them from source?
> >
> > Anyways, that is probably something to look into later. I think it makes
> > sense to do this update, remove that file, and include a link to the bug
> > report with a bit of context.
> >
> > Does anyone have any objections to that plan?
>
> I’m not sure I fully grasped everything, but the plan looks good. And
> since it’s an update and the problem was already there, let’s not annoy
> Tobias more than this. :-)
Pushed with some additional context as fb9ca51130a.
