On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:56 AM Maxime Devos
wrote:
> Then, if I understood correctly, IMO I would say Guile should not really
> care about Guix's bundling/unbundling. That is, adding (ice-9 base64) (or
> however we want to call it... maybe (encoding base64) following Golang and
> Guile's (web
Am Donnerstag, dem 18.08.2022 um 17:33 +0200 schrieb Tobias Platen:
> I recently found dosdefender-ld31, a public domain DOS game, designed
> to run in dosbox. To build you only need gnu make and a version of
> gcc that targets i386-gnu or i386-gnu-linux.
In that case building a Guix package
I recently found dosdefender-ld31, a public domain DOS game, designed
to run in dosbox. To build you only need gnu make and a version of gcc
that targets i386-gnu or i386-gnu-linux.
Hi Bengt,
On mar., 26 juil. 2022 at 03:09, Bengt Richter wrote:
> I naively don't buy the rationale against a non-root guix daemon :)
For sure, we can imagine many other designs than the current implemented
one. However, at one point or the other, “something with privileges” is
required, no?
Hi Josselin,
Thank you for the clear explanations.
On mer., 06 juil. 2022 at 22:01, Josselin Poiret wrote:
[...]
> What I personally think, is that we should rationalize the way we
> interact with Guix source: a running Guix should always be able to hold
> a reference to its source. The guix
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Jul 2022 at 22:22, Csepp wrote:
> Mumi and Debbugs have different search interfaces and seem to use
> different ordering.
Hum, I am confused because from my understanding, there is one Debbugs
instance – which is quickly said some Perl scripts managing mailing
lists and thus
Then, if I understood correctly, IMO I would say Guile should not
really care about Guix's bundling/unbundling. That is, adding (ice-9
base64) (or however we want to call it... maybe (encoding base64)
following Golang and Guile's (web ) module) should be totally
independent of Guix. So, if
