Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Andy wrote: > >> It would be pretty cool if we could fix our O(n^2) problems in search >> paths in this core-updates -- basically whenever you go to create an >> environment, instead of making e.g. VAR=A:B:C:..., for all VARs >> (LIBRARY_PATH,

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Andy wrote: > It would be pretty cool if we could fix our O(n^2) problems in search > paths in this core-updates -- basically whenever you go to create an > environment, instead of making e.g. VAR=A:B:C:..., for all VARs > (LIBRARY_PATH, PKG_CONFIG_PATH, etc), instead we make a union directory >

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Hey Marius, Marius Bakke skribis: > However I tried cherry-picking the two commits and there was only one > trivial conflict in gcc/c-family/c-common.h (apart from ChangeLog > updates, which were omitted). Patch attached and building! Woohoo! > I also prefer going

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Marius Bakke writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Ludovic Courtès writes: >> >>> Marius Bakke skribis: >>> Efraim Flashner writes: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200,

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Marius Bakke writes: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Marius Bakke skribis: >> >>> Efraim Flashner writes: >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > Since we're on the topic, I

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> Efraim Flashner writes: >> >>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon... Are we

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Marius Bakke skribis: > Efraim Flashner writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon... >>> Are we agile enough to use the very latest GCC by default

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Probably unrelated, but we also have to change the '--enable-kernel' >> configure flag to say '3.2.0' since that is the minimum supported by >> glibc 2.26. > > Does this mean that binaries built with

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Marius Bakke writes: > Probably unrelated, but we also have to change the '--enable-kernel' > configure flag to say '3.2.0' since that is the minimum supported by > glibc 2.26. Does this mean that binaries built with Guix will need at least Linux 3.2.0 to be executed? --

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Efraim Flashner writes: > On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >> Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon... >> Are we agile enough to use the very latest GCC by default yet? :-) > > That would be nice to at least move

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: > Efraim Flashner writes: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:44:53AM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:01:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> > Hello Guix! > >> > > >> > Yup, I

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Efraim Flashner writes: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:44:53AM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:01:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> > Hello Guix! >> > >> > Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing >> >

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

iyzs...@member.fsf.org (宋文武) skribis: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> On Tue 29 Aug 2017 00:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> >>> Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing >>> . Enjoy! >>> >>> Let’s freeze in one month, say

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Andy Wingo skribis: > On Tue 29 Aug 2017 00:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing >> . Enjoy! >> >> Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? > > It would be pretty cool if we could

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:44:53AM +0300, Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:01:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Hello Guix! > > > > Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing > > . Enjoy! > > > > Let’s freeze in one month, say

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Andy Wingo writes: > On Tue 29 Aug 2017 00:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing >> . Enjoy! >> >> Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? > > It would be pretty cool if we could

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

Andy Wingo writes: > On Tue 29 Aug 2017 00:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing >> . Enjoy! >> >> Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? > > It would be pretty cool if we could

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

On Tue 29 Aug 2017 00:01, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing > . Enjoy! > > Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? It would be pretty cool if we could fix our O(n^2) problems in search paths in this

Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 12:01:40AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing > . Enjoy! > > Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? > > Ludo’. > Lets also have a reminder about a week before to make

‘core-updates’ is back!

Hello Guix! Yup, I just created a new ‘core-updates’ branch by pushing . Enjoy! Let’s freeze in one month, say Oct. 1st? Ludo’.

core-updates is back

Hello! ‘core-updates’ is open again for updates to core packages (the implicit inputs of ‘gnu-build-system’), their dependencies, or the (guix build …) modules. Things I’d like to see in this branch include: • Removing locales from ‘glibc’, and instead provide a separate package to build

Re: core-updates is back

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 01:01:05PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Hello! ‘core-updates’ is open again for updates to core packages (the implicit inputs of ‘gnu-build-system’), their dependencies, or the (guix build …) modules. Things I’d like to see in this

Re: core-updates is back

John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au skribis: There is some oddness in cross-pkg-config: It creates a symlink to the real pkg-config, But does not do so for the pkg.m4 file. Why would the missing pkg.m4 be a problem? It’s only used when bootstrapping Autoconf-based packages. (And

Re: core-updates is back

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:36:47PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au skribis: There is some oddness in cross-pkg-config: It creates a symlink to the real pkg-config, But does not do so for the pkg.m4 file. Why would the

Re: core-updates is back

John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au skribis: On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 06:36:47PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: John Darrington j...@darrington.wattle.id.au skribis: There is some oddness in cross-pkg-config: It creates a symlink to the real pkg-config, But

core-updates is back

Hi! I pushed a new core-updates branch, with some of the changes I had in mind. Go ahead if you know of anything that needs to be fixed there. As discussed before, we’ll merge the branch before June 13th. Thanks, Ludo’.