Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Jelle Licht skribis:
>>
>>> The current ansible package is still brokenin the same way.
>>>
>>> Is there already an acceptable way of working around this problem?
>>> Otherwise I could send my (extremely hacky) workaround that
Hi!
Andy Wingo skribis:
> To be clear, here's the series of events. Firstly, know that defining a
> syntax parameter is like:
Thanks for the clear explanation!
>> So I came up with ‘define-syntax-parameter-once’, which is like
>> ‘define-once’ but for syntax parameters (note that we can’t
Maxim Cournoyer writes:
> Hello,
>
> Clément Lassieur writes:
>
>> Marius Bakke writes:
>>
>>> Clément Lassieur writes:
>>>
This is a wish. :-)
>>>
>>> Will 3.13.1 from 'staging' do?
>>
>> Yes sure! I hadn't checked staging. Thanks you :-)
>
> Maybe now would be a good time to merge
Hi,
This issue is solved in the website repository now. The following
commits fix remaining validation errors related to the use of the
obsolete TT element:
* 13a1a5a41df9eae7d3ca54c6ab4774c7804dba45
Hi!
On Wed 06 Feb 2019 15:48, Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I drew the conclusion that our syntax parameter is redefined when we
> compile or when we load (guix monads), so there’s a chance that we get
> to see the wrong value when we expand (guix monads) (I’m not entirely
> sure about the exact
Hello Andy!
Since guix-core.drv is the best reproducer I have so far for this syntax
parameter crash, I modified (guix self) to print the name of the files
it’s compiling, and here’s the crash I got (on a 24-core machine):
--8<---cut here---start->8---
Christopher Baines writes:
> I've tried out the change you pushed here [1], and it looks good to me
> :) I can't see anything odd in the output now.
>
> 1:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/commit/?id=7473bce207af846312d5167a398f5f20bbf3e896
With this change I see that there are
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Ludovic Courtès skribis:
>
>> Actually, to do things correctly, we should really store the .drv in the
>> ‘manifest’ file. That way, manifest entries would always contains a
>> valid “lowerable” object (a package or a derivation record), as opposed
>> to a store
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> Actually, to do things correctly, we should really store the .drv in the
> ‘manifest’ file. That way, manifest entries would always contains a
> valid “lowerable” object (a package or a derivation record), as opposed
> to a store reference that happens to be valid.
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Danny Milosavljevic skribis:
>
>> Hi Christopher,
>>> diff --git a/guix/scripts/package.scm b/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> index a633d2ee6d..4db0e72e9b 100644
>>> --- a/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> +++ b/guix/scripts/package.scm
>>> @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ hooks\" run
Hi!
plase is there someone else that could reproduce this issue with "guix
system container": https://issues.guix.info/issue/34211 ?
I'm still not able to run a container built using "guix system container
container-minimal.scm -r container-minimal"
I'm on guix commit:
11 matches
Mail list logo
