Hey,
> Okay, thanks! By the way, what is that '68a11045'? If it's a Git commit,
> I can't figure out where it is.
Yeah, but it disappeared when I removed the wip branch. I pushed it on
master: 2ccb715ab3ebef5ddbc53d706cbc42b3b765d613.
I tried to install a CI produced tarball
On Sun, Apr 18, 2021 at 09:36:29AM +0200, Mathieu Othacehe wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > I installed "by hand" using this tarball, and it worked fine.
> >
> > Since this bug is really about a broken CI job, and not the release
> > artifacts, I'm removing it from the list of release blockers.
>
>
Hello,
> I installed "by hand" using this tarball, and it worked fine.
>
> Since this bug is really about a broken CI job, and not the release
> artifacts, I'm removing it from the list of release blockers.
There's indeed a discrepancy between the Makefile and the (gnu ci)
release job. I'm
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 02:59:23PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote:
> I'm going to test installing with this tarball in a Debian ISO now.
I installed "by hand" using this tarball, and it worked fine.
Since this bug is really about a broken CI job, and not the release
artifacts, I'm removing it from
On Sat, Apr 17, 2021 at 03:29:27PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
> (114 being obtained by looking at the latest build of the tarball:
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/jobset/tarball).
[...]
> /root/.config/guix/current/etc/profile: No such file or directory
I built the tarball as it's done by `make
