Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Hi Maxime, Maxime Devos writes: >> > Not losing the revision is useful for things like >> > ;, to be able to determine the old >> > revision. (That's not about inheriting packages though.) > >> Isn't that addressed by addressing the second point, though?

Re: [bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

I've discussed this with dstolfa on IRC: https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-02.log#234707 https://logs.guix.gnu.org/guix/2021-09-03.log Greetings, Maxime. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[bug#50347] [RFC PATCH] lint: Warn about kernel modules with a suspect license.

X-Debbugs-CC: guix-devel@gnu.org [CC'ing guix-devel@gnu.org because a wider audience seems in order?] Hi guix, This patch adds a 'suspect-license' linter detecting some suspicious values in the license fields of linux modules: gnu/packages/file-systems.scm:1317:13: zfs@2.1.0: license appears

Re: branch core-updates-frozen updated: gnu: sddm: Fix build.

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 06:47:10PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! > > guix-comm...@gnu.org skribis: > > > efraim pushed a commit to branch core-updates-frozen > > in repository guix. > > > > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/core-updates-frozen by > > this push: > >

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:51:58PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Xinglu Chen wrote: > > > Commit dates don't have a consistent meaning: are they the time of > > > first revision of a commit? Final revision of a commit? Time of > > > signing? Pushing? They

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:57:23PM -0700, Sarah Morgensen wrote: > I do not have a specific solution in mind, but I think there must be > one. I do have a few half-baked ideas, but I'm curious what we can all > come up with together. Or maybe you'll just tell me I'm just being > awfully picky :)

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 06:50:36PM +0200, Xinglu Chen wrote: > With the former, I can quickly see that the version is from 2021-01-31, > whereas with the latter, I would have to either find the VCS repo online > or go to my local checkout of it and browse the logs. > > > Commit dates don't have a

Re: branch core-updates-frozen updated: gnu: sddm: Fix build.

Hello! guix-comm...@gnu.org skribis: > efraim pushed a commit to branch core-updates-frozen > in repository guix. > > The following commit(s) were added to refs/heads/core-updates-frozen by this > push: > new f883677 gnu: sddm: Fix build. > f883677 is described below > > commit

Re: I just got my pinephone.

Joshua Branson writes: > Hey Guix! > > I just got my phinephone. Horray! Awesome! > It's currently running postmarketOS (1). I usually work nights two > nights a week 10pm-6am (EST) Sunday night and Monday night. If a guix > developer would like ssh access to it during those times, then

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op do 02-09-2021 om 16:20 [+0200]: > Am Donnerstag, den 02.09.2021, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > > > > > > > 2. We cannot get at the source location for the definition > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > 'commit' or 'revision'. This would be useful for updating > >

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Am Donnerstag, den 02.09.2021, 16:09 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > > > > > > 2. We cannot get at the source location for the definition > > > > > > of > > > > > > 'commit' or 'revision'. This would be useful for updating > > > > > > these > > > > > > packages with `guix refresh -u`. There is a

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

> > > > > 2. We cannot get at the source location for the definition of > > > > > 'commit' or 'revision'. This would be useful for updating > > > > > these > > > > > packages with `guix refresh -u`. There is a proposed patch [0] > > > > > to > > > > > work around this, but it *is* a workaround.

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op wo 01-09-2021 om 23:47 [+0200]: > > https://guix.gnu.org/manual/en/html_node/Invoking-guix-download.html > Imo the only thing awkard about guix download is that it only handles > tarballs when a large chunk of packages use some sort of version > control. We might

Re: Transform options should error on nonexistant targets

Hi Ludo, On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 12:06, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Unfortunately we cannot do that: rewriting happens lazily, when the > various inputs fields (which are thunked) are accessed. When PROC > returns P, we still need to recurse into its inputs, until CUT? says we > can stop. (I’m

Re: Transform options should error on nonexistant targets

Hi, zimoun skribis: > On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 03:57, Ryan Prior wrote: >> I learned today that Guix will chug happily along applying a transform to a >> nonexistent package. >> >> For example, I can run: >> guix environment --with-latest=not-exist --ad-hoc which >> >> This shows no warning or

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Am Donnerstag, den 02.09.2021, 07:53 + schrieb Jonathan McHugh: > Hi Liliana, > > Given your examples I expect improving upstream CHANGELOG (or third > party) files would be too much of a burden in order to solve the > aforementioned problems. ChangeLogs are generally not installed as part of

Re: Can we find a better idiom for unversioned packages?

Hi Liliana, Given your examples I expect improving upstream CHANGELOG (or third party) files would be too much of a burden in order to solve the aforementioned problems. Jonathan September 1, 2021 11:47 PM, "Liliana Marie Prikler" wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 01.09.2021, 19:48 + schrieb