Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

mythes: Remove spurious dependency on ncurses #51489

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

mythes: Remove spurious dependency on ncurses #51489

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

neilmayhew
Copy link
Member

Motivation for this change

A dependency on ncurses was added to fix a build failure, but ncurses is needed only for a test program which should be in check_PROGRAMS instead of noinst_PROGRAMS. This change adds a patch for this. I'll submit the patch upstream so it doesn't become a maintenance burden.

The bug is reported as #51297.

Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing (nix.useSandbox on NixOS, or option sandbox in nix.conf on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • other Linux distributions
  • Tested via one or more NixOS test(s) if existing and applicable for the change (look inside nixos/tests)
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Determined the impact on package closure size (by running nix path-info -S before and after)
  • Assured whether relevant documentation is up to date
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

@c0bw3b
Copy link
Contributor

c0bw3b commented Dec 4, 2018

For context: #51454 was merged because we needed a timely solution to not let LibreOffice break on master and @avnik raised awareness about this and his PR on IRC.

Now, the build-time dep on ncurses is avoidable yes, but not "spurious" since the example bin built by default along with the lib needs libtinfo.
Note that we could define a checkPhase to run this bin and test the lib that was built. That's what Arch package does for example (pun not intended).

Or we could move it entirely as you propose. But I don't see much benefit in having to store one more patch inside the tree (we try to fetch patches from external sources as much as possible) and having to autoreconf.

@hedning
Copy link
Contributor

hedning commented Dec 8, 2018

We should probably just fix hunspell's .la files with pruneLibtoolFiles as that's the root cause of the issue.

@neilmayhew neilmayhew closed this Jan 3, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
10.rebuild-darwin: 1-10 10.rebuild-linux: 1-10
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@neilmayhew @c0bw3b @hedning @GrahamcOfBorg