Re: [PATCH v3] gnu: Add python2-shedskin.

2016-05-01 Thread Leo Famulari
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:04:59AM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > > My instinct is that we should make it refer directly to the libraries > > (pcre and libgc) but that user-facing executables like make and g++ > > should be installed by the user. > > Yeah, I did it like that in the existing p

Re: [PATCH v3] gnu: Add python2-shedskin.

2016-04-24 Thread Danny Milosavljevic
> My instinct is that we should make it refer directly to the libraries > (pcre and libgc) but that user-facing executables like make and g++ > should be installed by the user. Yeah, I did it like that in the existing patch. > The examples may not be 100% relevant; is shedskin totally useless > w

Re: [PATCH v3] gnu: Add python2-shedskin.

2016-04-07 Thread Leo Famulari
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:13:24PM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:19:09 -0400 > Leo Famulari wrote: > > If it works, then I think it's better than propagating pcre and libgc. > > It does work. > > However, shedskin creates C++ source files and a Makefile. The user the

[PATCH v3] gnu: Add python2-shedskin.

2016-04-07 Thread Danny Milosavljevic
On Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:19:09 -0400 Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 07:26:59AM +0200, Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > > Patch that does the latter. Is that OK? > > If it works, then I think it's better than propagating pcre and libgc. It does work. However, shedskin creates C++ sou