I am closing this issue. Kristiyan Kanchev <[email protected]> writes:
> That's great news! Thank you, Mathieu, and keep up the good work, I see you > making progress on other clojure-related stuff! > > // > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2026, 00:04 Mathieu Lirzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Kristiyan, > > Your contribution has been merged on master. We should finally have a > fully functional ‘clojure-tools’ package. > > For now we still need to explicitly install clojure-tools, openjdk:jdk, > coreutils and optionally rlwrap. I have tried to make OpenJDK and > Coreutils proper package inputs but there was an issue when using > cider-repl. I am currently investigating that issue. > > Regards, > > Mathieu > > Kristiyan Kanchev <[email protected]> writes: > > > No, I don't mind at all. Thank you for helping me out. > > > > // > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2026, 12:40 Mathieu Lirzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > I am fine with that incremental approach. > > > > If you don't mind, in order to make the job of the committer as easy as > > possible, I will gather your patches into a PR on codeberg. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Mathieu Lirzin > > > > Kristiyan Kanchev <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Hello, > > > Sorry for the delayed response, I'm on FOSDEM now but unfortunately, I > won't be abe to attend Guix Days. > > > I think the best route is to merge my patches as is and then open a new > PR on codeberg updating only the resolver. > > > I'm absolutely sure that resolver 1.6 is enough for clojure to function > properly, but also agree with your remarks that 1.8 > would > > be even > > > better. However, I don't think maven-resolver 1.8 is ported on Guix > now, so this would involve some more porting and it's > better > > to > > > tackle this in a future PR. What do you think? > > > > > > // > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2026, 20:10 Mathieu Lirzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello Kristiyan, > > > > > > Do you agree with the rationale for making clojure-tools-deps depend on > > > maven-resolver 1.8.2 instead of 1.6.3 ? > > > > > > Given your understandeable dishartenment, Are you still interested in > > > giving a second shot by opening PR on codeberg containing the updated > > > package definition ? > > > > > > Since dependency resolution problem is forcing me to fallback on using > > > ‘clojure-tools-bin’ from nonguix which is frustrating, I am willing to > > > take the burden of opening the PR and pinging people on IRC until some > > > committer gets to merge it, if you prefer. > > > > > > What is more comfortable to you ? > > > > > > Mathieu > > > > > > Ben Sturmfels <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > Mathieu Lirzin <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > > > >> My recommandation is similar to what Kristiyan has done. I am > > > >> perfectly > > > >> fine with the usage of maven-3.8-core as input to clojure-tools-deps > > > >> package. However as you suggested I am in favour of depending on > > > >> maven-resolver-1.8 instead of maven-resolver-1.6 because this is > > > >> safer > > > >> to depends on a minor version that matches what is distributed in > > > >> the > > > >> upstream clojure-tools bundle JAR. > > > > > > > > Thanks. I'm no expert in analysing JAR files, but upstream > > > > clojure-tools does appear to be depending on maven-resolver 1.8. The > > > > linux-install.sh fetches > > > > > https://github.com/clojure/brew-install/releases/download/1.12.4.1602/clojure-tools-1.12.4.1602.tar.gz > > > > which installs the included > > > > clojure-tools/clojure-tools-1.12.4.1602.jar. That JAR has > > > > > META-INF/maven/org.apache.maven.resolver/maven-resolver-api/pom.properties, > > > > which lists: > > > > > > > > artifactId=maven-resolver-api > > > > groupId=org.apache.maven.resolver > > > > version=1.8.2 > > > > > > > > Same for the include JAR in Guix's very slightly older version > > > > 1.12.4.1582. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Ben > > > > > > > > > >
