Re: 01/01: gnu: gcl: Update snapshot.

Mark H Weaver writes: > kkebr...@posteo.net (Kei Kebreau) writes: > >> kkebreau pushed a commit to branch master >> in repository guix. >> >> commit dd0134fcb707452e1c343d66af6088c0be38a285 >> Author: Kei Kebreau >> Date: Wed Nov 22 13:47:33 2017 -0500 >>

Re: 01/01: gnu: gcl: Update snapshot.

kkebr...@posteo.net (Kei Kebreau) writes: > kkebreau pushed a commit to branch master > in repository guix. > > commit dd0134fcb707452e1c343d66af6088c0be38a285 > Author: Kei Kebreau > Date: Wed Nov 22 13:47:33 2017 -0500 > > gnu: gcl: Update snapshot. > > *

Re: 01/01: gnu: Add guile-dsv.

alex.sassmannshau...@gmail.com (Alex Sassmannshausen) writes: > atheia pushed a commit to branch master > in repository guix. > > commit e9291eaa427066e5c8e531acc79f34d93dc845f0 > Author: Alex Sassmannshausen > Date: Fri Nov 24 11:51:19 2017 +0100 > > gnu: Add guile-dsv. >

Re: Please write "Update to " instead of "Update snapshot"

I thought "Update snapshot." had become customary for updating to different VCS commits. I am in favor of keeping "Update to ." where is the Guix version string of the package in question. This practice is especially useful when using "git shortlog" and related tools. signature.asc Description:

Please write "Update to " instead of "Update snapshot"

Hello Guix, I'd like to propose that we deprecate the practice of simply writing "Update snapshot" in the summary line of software updates, and instead consistently write "Update to ", as we do for the vast majority of updates. This practice seems to have originated with our 'guix-devel'

Re: Cross-compilation, Guix "system", and GNU "triplet"

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > What I meant is that, in the functional model as implemented in > Nix/Guix, the derivation graph captures all user-land software that > comes into play. But it does not capture the hardware and kernel, both > of which are taken from granted. > > Thus,

Re: Cross-compilation, Guix "system", and GNU "triplet"

Heya, Chris Marusich skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> The Guix system string has the form ARCHITECTURE-KERNEL, because these >> are the two things not explicitly captured by the derivation graph. > > I see. When you say that something is "captured by

Re: maxima: The SGC segfault recovery test failed with memprotect_bad_fault_address, SGC disabled

Kei Kebreau writes: > Kei Kebreau writes: >> >> I turns out that the issue is with stratified garbage collection in >> GCL. The substitute from hydra.gnu.org does in fact give me the error >> when I run "(si::sgc-on t)" in the REPL. I'm preparing a

Re: [bootstrappable] Re: prototyping the full source bootstrap path

Ricardo Wurmus writes: Hey Ricardo, >> Is there a way to use replace the guile-2.2.2 dependency with the static >> bootstrap tarball guile-2.0.9? That would already help a lot! > > You can override the “guile-for-build” in the GNU build system by > passing “#:guile ,my-guile” as an argument.

Re: Cross-compilation, Guix "system", and GNU "triplet"

Hi Ludo, As always, thank you for entertaining my questions! l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > The Guix system string has the form ARCHITECTURE-KERNEL, because these > are the two things not explicitly captured by the derivation graph. I see. When you say that something is "captured by