Re: What is wrong with these few lines of guile code?

Hartmut Goebel writes: > Am 31.10.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Christopher Baines: >> This matches the error you're getting, as #~ is short for (gexp ...) as >> I understand it. > > Thanks you, this did the trick :-) Although this reminds my on the magic > signs in perl

Re: avoid wrapper scripts when possible

Christopher Baines writes: > However, I think that the file wrapping approach has advantages for > visibility. Maybe it could be tweaked to keep ensure the wrapper script > has the same name as the script its wrapping, e.g. when wrapping foo, > replace foo with a bash script, and move the real

Re: avoid wrapper scripts when possible

On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 22:31:16 +0100 Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Hi Guix, > > the environment activation feature of our “conda” package currently > fails. This is because the “deactivate” shell script is wrapped in > another shell script. This leads to the actual shell script to

Re: What is wrong with these few lines of guile code?

Am 31.10.2017 um 18:50 schrieb Christopher Baines: > This matches the error you're getting, as #~ is short for (gexp ...) as > I understand it. Thanks you, this did the trick :-) Although this reminds my on the magic signs in perl :-( >From the "Zen of Python": Explicit is better than implicit.

avoid wrapper scripts when possible

Hi Guix, the environment activation feature of our “conda” package currently fails. This is because the “deactivate” shell script is wrapped in another shell script. This leads to the actual shell script to be called “.deactivate-real”. The script compares the value of “$0” with the expected

Re: Let's build 'core-updates'!

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 11:29:17PM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 09:33:02PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > > We are still missing the "binutils" update. Efraim, do you remember > > what the issue with 2.29 was? > > binutils-boot0 built fine, I don't remember what the next

Re: Tiny Guix (and containers)

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:11:36PM +, Dave Love wrote: > Pjotr Prins writes: > > > But, really, I think when talking embedded systems and containers we > > all want tiny. Even HPC can benefit. Tiny containers may be an > > attractive proposition. > > Yes,

Re: Hacks to install Guix packages without root

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:19:55PM +, Dave Love wrote: > Pjotr Prins writes: > > > PRoot is too slow for most HPC purposes but can be used to build > > non-proot binaries, as I do here: > > > > https://gitlab.com/pjotrp/guix-notes/blob/master/GUIX-NO-ROOT.org >