Re: Shepherd should not reboot on exit when running as root

[Arun Isaac]

> Oops, fixed in 7c380590164ea8ee40de46059d07e08a48963577, thanks!

That's a neat solution. Thanks, Ludo!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: The way to promote GUIX package manager

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Vagrant Cascadian  writes:

>> (In the end I removed the Debian package and installed with
>> https://guix.gnu.org/install.sh; this was trickier than it should have
>> been, because the Debian package left behind a broken init service and
>> some state that I deleted manually.)
>
> There is a difference on Debian between removed and purged, sounds like
> you just removed it:
>
>   apt --purge remove PACKAGE
>
> should have done what you wanted, and if it didn't, bugs reports would
> be appreciated...

Ah, I wasn’t aware of the difference.  I’m sure it works fine.  Now I no
longer have a way to test this, though, as the laptop uses Guix now.

-- 
Ricardo

Re: The way to promote GUIX package manager

[Vagrant Cascadian]

On 2022-02-05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Ludovic Courtès  writes:
>> Vagrant Cascadian  skribis:
>>
>>> The main two issues I'm aware of are...
>>>
>>> Issue with "guix pull" from the guix 1.2 version:
>>>
>>>   https://bugs.debian.org/1001833
>>
>> I believe this was fixed:
>>
>>   https://issues.guix.gnu.org/52694

Great, will try it again!


> Last week (or maybe two weeks ago, but no sooner than that) I ran “sudo
> apt install guix” on a laptop with Debian and I followed the advice to
> pull to the commit corresponding to 1.3.0.

That definitely worked a while back when I followed up to the Debian
bug, but guix always seems to have some new surprises in store!


> Every time at the end I got this git error: “the requested type does not
> match the type in the ODB”.
>
> Would it have been any different had I pulled directly to the latest
> version…?  Or is this unrelated?

I'll have to verify again...


> (In the end I removed the Debian package and installed with
> https://guix.gnu.org/install.sh; this was trickier than it should have
> been, because the Debian package left behind a broken init service and
> some state that I deleted manually.)

There is a difference on Debian between removed and purged, sounds like
you just removed it:

  apt --purge remove PACKAGE

should have done what you wanted, and if it didn't, bugs reports would
be appreciated...


live well,
  vagrant


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: cross compiling using qemu-user-static

[Tobias Platen]

is now fixed, I can now login from my laptop, and I also use two of my
laptops USB ports for both networking and charging the battery.

isengaara-openpandora:~$ uname -a
Linux isengaara-openpandora 3.2.57 #982 Sun Apr 20 20:33:11 EEST 2014
armv7l GNU/Linux
isengaara-openpandora:~$ ls /gnu/store/
01b4w3m6mp55y531kyi1g8shh722kwqm-gcc-7.5.0-
lib
k384n83b8l5bdwsa05prhlw3wsmak40p-openssh-8.5p1
0acliwmd1gpd1y67bbx7lpl4sqzka2y6-gcc-cross-arm-linux-gnueabihf-7.5.0-
libkxb22znvi7jb3mmc596i33c3y3xsd4mh-ncurses-6.2
1v9ynmn33agz43np663l2bb9ck5n2i4l-linux-pam-
1.5.1  kz9r6h1dziyknbwgg6i5jpays5ggzf3c-profile
2dgh7v30fa85d515n2fghjjrsj56qnf5-linux-libre-headers-cross-arm-linux-
gnueabihf-5.4.20  mmhimfwmmidf09jw1plw3aw1g1zn2nkh-bash-static-5.0.16
3smqcfmicplwcrsbpqf7500i9hpkw8n7-glibc-cross-arm-linux-gnueabihf-
2.31   n0hnwyfvdrrwvg6dc0cbap74hjrazdcx-zlib-1.2.11
59rcg987542x54ryqypkvk68n32gkg82-openssl-
1.1.1k 
pwcp239kjf7lnj5i4lkdzcfcxwcfyk72-bash-minimal-5.0.16
bcjcd97xvh0qkvq1maqj6qab88xb30dv-bash-static-
5.0.16 
r0lvhigifp9acp6razf3r4ccbazpnvbq-libedit-20191231-3.1
bjjikcvyr6m5yiv6h21p3088wh92lv3a-info-
dir
skjd1576693sppg33vp9nzlpmfvwqs3y-mit-krb5-1.18
fa6wj5bxkj5ll1d7292a70knmyl7a0cr-glibc-
2.31   
x84gw65mhp1hz89b005k5g904pr1xp68-gcc-cross-sans-libc-arm-linux-gnueabihf-7.5.0-lib
gznjmd83vrqd5zdm7ryk998whvxf7la3-manual-
database   
zzkly5rbfvahwqgcs7crz0ilpi7x5g5p-ncurses-6.2

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Efraim Flashner]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> .
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
> 
> If you would prefer different licensing terms, or if you have any
> questions, feel free to ask them publicly on guix-devel@gnu.org or
> privately with guix-maintain...@gnu.org.
> 
> The clarified license will allow us and others to reuse material in the
> manual, cookbook, and in other free cultural works.  See
> 
> for the initial discussion.
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Ludo’.

I agree

-- 
Efraim Flashner  רנשלפ םירפא
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Magali Lemes]

Hi,
Em sáb., 5 de fev. de 2022 às 10:47, Ludovic Courtès 
escreveu:

> Hello,
>
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> .
>
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
>
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
>
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).
>

I agree.

Magali

Re: License of your contributions to the blog at guix.gnu.org

[Leo Famulari]

On Sat, Feb 05, 2022 at 02:47:04PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am emailing you on behalf of the GNU Guix project because you are the
> author or coauthor of one or more articles to the blog at
> .
> 
> With a few exceptions, these articles do not have a clear license, which
> we would like to fix.  We propose to dual-license all the articles under
> CC-BY-SA 4.0 and GFDL version 1.3 or later, with no Invariant Sections,
> no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
> 
> Do you agree with the proposed licensing terms for your contributions to
> the blog?
> 
> If you do, please reply to this message to say so, keeping
> guix-devel@gnu.org Cc’d (if you already replied in the previous thread,
> you do not need to reply again).

I agree.

Re: File search

[André A . Gomes]

Ludovic Courtès  writes:

> Hello Guix!
>
> Lately I found myself going several times to
>  to look for packages providing a given
> file and I thought it’s time to do something about it.

My understanding is very limited but I thought that the following blog
post could be of any help.

https://batsov.com/articles/2022/01/22/how-to-find-which-package-a-file-belongs-to-in-debian-ubuntu/


-- 
André A. Gomes
"Free Thought, Free World"

Re: Dropping gzip-compressed substitutes?

[Ricardo Wurmus]

Ludovic Courtès  writes:

> Hello!
>
> I saw in the maintainer meeting minutes the point about substitute
> compression.
>
> Back when zstd substitutes were introduced, the idea was to “eventually”
> drop gzip substitutes (lzip substitutes remain relevant⁰):
>
>   https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-03/msg00333.html
>
> It was too early back then but I think we could consider dropping it
> after 1.4.0 is out, announcing it in advance.

Sounds good to me.

> To those users still running a pre-1.1.0 daemon lacking lzip support¹,
> things will just break, or at least they won’t get newer substitutes.
> It’s been almost 2 years since 1.1.0 was released though.

I’ll admit that back then I had neglected to upgrade the shared daemon
at the MDC, missing the change to different compression types.  A
considerable chunk of the demand for gzip substitutes then could have
been due to the MDC.

Eventually, I did upgrade the shared daemon, so demand should have
dropped significantly.

> But there does seem to be users on foreign distros who never update
> their daemon and don’t read news either.  We could have (guix store)
> warn when it’s talking to an old daemon, which would give people a
> reminder that they need to upgrade.  (That would only work for very old
> daemons because the protocol version rarely changes.)

Printing a warning is a good way to get people’s attention, so I’m all
for it to prepare for the big break.

-- 
Ricardo

Dropping gzip-compressed substitutes?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

I saw in the maintainer meeting minutes the point about substitute
compression.

Back when zstd substitutes were introduced, the idea was to “eventually”
drop gzip substitutes (lzip substitutes remain relevant⁰):

  https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2021-03/msg00333.html

It was too early back then but I think we could consider dropping it
after 1.4.0 is out, announcing it in advance.

To those users still running a pre-1.1.0 daemon lacking lzip support¹,
things will just break, or at least they won’t get newer substitutes.
It’s been almost 2 years since 1.1.0 was released though.

But there does seem to be users on foreign distros who never update
their daemon and don’t read news either.  We could have (guix store)
warn when it’s talking to an old daemon, which would give people a
reminder that they need to upgrade.  (That would only work for very old
daemons because the protocol version rarely changes.)

Thoughts?

Ludo’.

⁰ https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2021/getting-bytes-to-disk-more-quickly/
¹ https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/gnu-guix-1.1.0-released/