Hi! Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis:
> the following commit > commit eb354bdacbf4154ec66038dac07f19bf4ced1fad > Author: Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> > Date: Mon May 9 15:54:34 2016 +0200 > > gnu: ghostscript: Do not build the statically-linked 'gs' binary. > > * gnu/packages/ghostscript.scm (ghostscript)[arguments]: Remove > 'build-so' and 'install-so' phases. Replace 'build' and 'install' > phases. Ahem, I plaid guilty. > removes "gs" from the ghostscript package. However, this is the usual program > that people expect. For instance, unison uses it for building its > documentation. Is there a dynamically linked binary which replaces gs? > If yes, should we add a symbolic link? I think so. For the current solution (avoiding a full rebuild), see commit 61dc82d9b90d0545739c30bfc33003bd062071f0. LilyPond could hard-code the file name of ‘gsc’. Alternately, we could provide a wrapper containing a ‘gs’ symlink. This has been discussed with Efraim IIRC, though I can’t find the thread now. Thoughts? Ludo’.
