Hello Ben and Kristiyan,

>From a Clojure developer perspective, I think the most important thing
is to ensure that the dependency resolution of Clojure Guix behave
exactly the same as upstream.  As a consequence I would be in favour of
introducing dedicated maven-* package definitions matching the version
included Clojure upstream.  WDYT?

Regarding the latent patch issue, unfortunately you cannot do much about
it, except maybe opening a PR on codeberg which seems to get more
attention than patches these days.  IMO the main issue is that currently
the Java team is too small to ensure that Java related contributions get
proper attention.  I will be present at the Guix Days at brussels next
week, and during that event I will try to discuss with Julien Lepiller
which has done an amazing work on the Java side of Guix, to see what can
be done to improve the contributor experience.

Regards,

Mathieu Lirzin

Kristiyan Kanchev <[email protected]> writes:

> 'clojure-tools-deps' has always listed resolver version 1.8.* as its 
> dependency. But the real problem is 'maven-core'. 'maven-core' 3.9 is
> incompatible. 'maven-core' 3.8, which is compatible, lists resolver 1.6 as 
> its dependency on the official upstream repository. So, I
> decided to go with that. 
>
> I'm a bit disheartened that this patch is staying latent for more than a 
> year. I don't know what to do to get this merged.
>
> //
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026, 10:02 Ben Sturmfels <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  Ben Sturmfels <[email protected]> writes:
>
>  > Confirming that Kristiyan's patch works well for me.
>
>  I just saw Mathieu's Guix Clojure package updates which is 
>  exciting! The clojure-tools-deps package is now at 0.28.1569 in 
>  Guix, which appears to depend on resolver 1.8 
>  (https://github.com/clojure/tools.deps/blob/v0.28.1569/pom.xml):
>
>      <clojure.version>1.12.4</clojure.version>
>      <resolverVersion>1.8.2</resolverVersion>
>      <mavenVersion>3.8.8</mavenVersion>
>
>  Does that mean the 1.6s in this patch should now become 1.8s?
>
>  Regards,
>  Ben
>



Reply via email to