<mark_weaver>a_e: thanks for updating mesa! I wasn't sure whether to update the URL or switch to a newer version.
<mark_weaver>a_e: it looks like the build problem for newer versions could be fixed by touching some files before the build, to prevent automake/autoconf from being run.
<mark_weaver>presumably there's a rule in the makefile to run automake or autoconf again if one of the source files is newer than the corresponding generated files. probably the patching that happens as part of nix/guix builds is making that happen.
<fddddddd>What's wrong with gnunet_bot? I noticed that it quits the channel from time to time.
<mark_weaver>a_e: probably because one of the patching/substitution operations is modifying one of the source files used by automake/autoconf, thus triggering the associated Makefile rules that use automake/autoconf to regenerate.
<a_e>fddddddd: It does not record anything right now. So we can speak freely ;-)
<gzg> fddddddd: I'm going to see if I can get pythoen-lxml going before I go to bed tonight, if not -- yeah, I'll submit a patch for python.scm; I'll probably upload what I have thus far, for network.scm too,
<fddddddd>Also, take a look at the python package. python-2 is a variable, python is a name, version is set to 2.7.5. Could you try to do a similar thing?
<fddddddd>gzg: For instance, if I try to build it like this: ./pre-inst-env guix build python-2 I get "package not found for version 2". Either a name or a name-version should be used.
<mark_weaver>gzg: my impression is that base.scm is specifically for things that almost everything else depends on, so that set of packages need to be treated specially. I suspect it's a bad idea to move anything out of that module without understanding the ramifications. civodul would know though.
<fddddddd>jxself, taylanub, mark_weaver: I read the FFmpeg vs. Libav discussion. IIUC, both can do similar things, but the former uses the dictator model and promotes a free-software-unfriendly patented codec. Is it correct? If it's not, could you start a new thread on the list? IMO, such things should be discussed there.
<jxself>I'm not certain if it can be stated that the FFmpeg project promotes any particular codec over another.
<mark_weaver>fddddddd: I agree that we need a list discussion. but I find it sometimes helps to discuss on IRC first.
<a_e>fddddddd: Do what you have to do for the front ends! I do not actually need octave. I just tried to build it once (for my Paris talk, I think) and noticed it needed gfortran. One more step towards having all of the gnu project in guix.
<a_e>mark_weaver: pari-gp cannot build on mips n32. It requires sizeof(long)==sizeof(void*).
<fddddddd>jxself, taylanub: I didn't write that to start a flamewar. That's why I suggested the list. I'd like to see the facts. (But if both can do the same things, why can't we choose the one with a free-software-friendly name?)
<mark_weaver>jxself: I'm aware that MPEG != MPEG-LA. MPEG publishes standards that cannot be used by free software without the threat of patent infringment lawsuits. In fact, as far as I know, they don't publish any standards that we can use.
<jxself>I seem to recall reading about the domain hijacking somewhere.
<mark_weaver>a basic problem we have here is that virtually everyone who is involved enough in that code base to be competent to judge the comparative merits has probably chosen sides, and thus is likely to be unfair to the other side.
<jxself>Both issues, I mean. Talking and code sharing.
<mark_weaver>given that the entire purpose of the libav fork in the first place was to unseat a dictator, I don't think it's fair to make them look like the bad guys because they "refuse to play ball" with the former dictator.
<mark_weaver>it's been pointed out that the former dictator has become a lot better since the libav was created and became so widely used (due to debian and ubuntu choosing to use libav).
<mark_weaver>but to my mind, that doesn't mean that we should let him gain a position of dominance again.
<jxself>I'm talking of refusing to play with anyone.
<mark_weaver>People who slip into dictatorial mode once can easily slip into it again, if given the chance.
<jxself>"We don't like this person so we'll ignore the entire project and everyone in it."
<mark_weaver>and then we'd have to go through this all over again.
<taylanub>By the way does anyone have sources on all the things the dictator did wrong, which initially made the later-to-be-Libav people mad ?
<mark_weaver>and again, I will point out that this dictator does not seem to consider support for theora/vorbis to be a priority. if his priorities were at least aligned with ours, _maybe_ it would be reasonable to let him stay in that position.
<jxself>You seem to attribute all project decision to this single person. How many people work on FFmpeg again?
<a_e>I found an interesting source which I am reading right now:
<mark_weaver>I'll have to ask RMS if he thinks it's unreasonable to dislike MPEG (as opposed to MPEG-LA)
<a_e>mark_weaver, jxself: Independently of the name, both ffmpeg and libav implement the same codecs. So in practice, using one or the other does not solve nor create any patent problems. Liking or not "mpeg" as part of the name should not, I think, drive our decision of which one to package.
<taylanub>BTW tiny nitpick: libav.org has the header "Open source audio and video processing tools" under its logo. (Otherwise ffmpeg.org and libav.org seem equivalent in wording regarding free software, licenses, etc.)
<taylanub>If I find time I'll try some more to get information on the respective projects' attitude towards FSF ideals.