MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <878vgi1ign.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <87txzsgs4g.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<cover.1336402558.git.alip@exherbo.org>
	<1559639bc5e9e3253f2ee2220a8d8d00c39d9d43.1336402558.git.alip@exherbo.org>
	<CAMP44s15Q6F9bA0MirS3zyBU3AqomH7wKBmLvqEtAnBnzHrw=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<878vgi1ign.fsf@zancas.localnet>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 10:56:58 +0200
Message-ID:
 <CAMP44s2ATDkix0OKEc6c9pZrudnYk=7tCme=d+VJcfeivFRhew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] ruby: Add workarounds to use in-tree build not the
	installed one
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Ali Polatel <alip@exherbo.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 3:22 AM, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>> I don't see how this patch could be fixed properly easily, and it was
>> labeled as a hack, and I didn't like it in the first place anyway, so
>> I'm going to revert it by tomorrow if I don't hear any good reason not
>> to.
>
> I think this highlights the need for at least a minimal test suite for
> the ruby

Yeap, I thought the same.

> I do plan on a bug fix release, to fix an annoying emacs interface bug
> if nothing else. I'd rather see a fix/revert coordinated with Ali in his
> role as ruby bindings maintainer.

Well, sure, if possible that would be best. But I doubt the ruby
bindings maintainer would complain about making the Ruby bindings work
again :)

Worst-case scenario we would end up with what we had before.

> FWIW, the previous situation of linking with the installed version of
> notmuch sounds somewhat broken as well, although obviously preferable to
> not working at all.

That would be only if there was installed version of notmuch, which
some people don't have (e.g. me).

Either way, to fix that particular problem we don't need to link to
the static library, we can just the right CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, in fact,
I wonder how is it that it's not working properly; AFAIK the linker
and compiler would use first the headers and libraries found in these
flags, and only as a fallback use the system ones, so if anybody has
managed to compile before (I have) the headers and libraries would be
in some -I/-L path.

I could try to investigate, but at the moment I still see no reason
not to revert.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras