On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 09:02:10AM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:53:24AM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> In that case, it would seem to me, that perl should not be in input at
all.
It should. Perl is needed for "make check". But even if it were not, we
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:53:24AM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> In that case, it would seem to me, that perl should not be in input at all.
It should. Perl is needed for "make check". But even if it were not, we
always patch-shebang script files in our packages. Otherwise they would not
be usab
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 11:31:18PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:55:55PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> What do these scripts do anyway? Are they fundamental to TeXlive or are
they for some bells and whistles?
I never use them as far as I know, so the
Andreas Enge skribis:
> But then I suppose that "make check" does not make much sense anyway when
> cross-compiling? Do we activate it then?
For Automake-generated makefiles, ‘make check’ does nothing when
cross-compiling, so no extra action needs to be taken.
Ludo’.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:55:55PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> What do these scripts do anyway? Are they fundamental to TeXlive or are they
> for some bells and whistles?
I never use them as far as I know, so they do not seem to be fundamental.
Andreas
Andreas Enge skribis:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:13:09PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
>> If they were "normal" inputs and you were cross compiling, then the packages
>> which
>> are made available, would be those for the target system, not the native
>> one. Hence
>> they could not run, and
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 07:51:44PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:39:48PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Would it work? One would need to patch-shebang with the normal input and
> use the native-input for scripts that are used during the build process.
> Is
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:39:48PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
> Would it work? One would need to patch-shebang with the normal input and
> use the native-input for scripts that are used during the build process.
> Is this distinguished somehow? (Well, there is of course the problem of
> scripts tha
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:43:03PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:13:09PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> You are probably right - to be sure they should be manually checked. An
> alternative would be to attempt cross building all the affected
packages.
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:39:48PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:13:09PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> If they were "normal" inputs and you were cross compiling, then the
packages which
> are made available, would be those for the target system, not the nat
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:13:09PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> You are probably right - to be sure they should be manually checked. An
> alternative would be to attempt cross building all the affected packages.
In the case that native inputs should instead be normal, if I understand
correct
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:13:09PM +0100, John Darrington wrote:
> If they were "normal" inputs and you were cross compiling, then the packages
> which
> are made available, would be those for the target system, not the native one.
> Hence
> they could not run, and the build would break.
Well,
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:00:02PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote:
Currently, texlive has a certain number of native inputs:
(native-inputs
`(("perl" ,perl)
("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
("python" ,python-2) ; incompatible with Python 3 (print syntax)
Currently, texlive has a certain number of native inputs:
(native-inputs
`(("perl" ,perl)
("pkg-config" ,pkg-config)
("python" ,python-2) ; incompatible with Python 3 (print syntax)
("tcsh" ,tcsh)))
But I think these are not needed during build time, but to patch-shebang
sc
14 matches
Mail list logo
