Hello, ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Hello! >> >> ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> skribis: >> >>> From 6babb18479de83bd19c44412c7957918d2c917b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: ng0 <n...@we.make.ritual.n0.is> >>> Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 22:11:41 +0000 >>> Subject: [PATCH 4/6] gnu: Add gpgscm. >>> >>> * gnu/packages/gnupg.scm (gpgscm): New variable. >> >> [...] >> >>> + (home-page "https://gnupg.org/";) >>> + (synopsis "tinyscheme implementation used by The GNU Privacy Guard") >> >> I’ve seen some of the discussions on IRC about gpgscm. However, it’s >> not clear to me why we should make it a separate package. AIUI, it’s >> meant as a purely GnuPG-internal tool, and as such it may evolve in >> lockstep with the rest of the GnuPG code base. >> >> So I’d be tempted to keep it internal to GnuPG, unless upstream decides >> to make it a separate package (which seems unlikely; it may be come part >> of libgpg-error, though.) >> >> WDYT? >> >> Thanks, >> Ludo’. > > I'm not familiar with all the short words being used all the > time. What is AIUI? "As I understand it"? Yes; apologies for being cryptic without even noticing! > I think I forgot to add more descriptions above this patch and > the gnupg one. > > It should've read: > > This is a not very pleasant, but working hack > to enable building >=gnupg-2.1.14 without wasting much time on > having to built gpgscm in the gnupg package. Whoever wants to > fix this may step forward and do it, I am done with this as I > need to focus on something else. > This is left intentionally with comments for other people to > improve in case we even use this. Else, someone can improve my > gnupg-2.1.14 patch and make the gpgscm patc obsolete. OK, but what do you think of the comments I made above? Thanks, Ludo’.
