Re: lxc and subuid

Hi, Maxime Devos skribis: > Antonio Carlos Padoan Junior schreef op wo 30-03-2022 om 08:51 [+0200]: >> Hello, >> >> I'm trying to figure out how to set a unprivileged container using lxc >> in guix. I do not know either how to allocate subuid/gid space in guix, > > subuid/gid are _not_

Re: New review checklist

There is no reference to XML. Nor does it provide any interopabilietie with SOAP. Please stop wasting the mailinglists time with this non XML based hokum, this is Guxi.FFSaek. :) Jonathan McHugh indieterminacy@libre.brussels April 1, 2022 6:15 AM, "Liliana Marie Prikler"

Re: better error messages through assertions

Hi, Andy Wingo skribis: > Here we see the first procedure which is the thunk that wraps the > expression. Then in the beginning of the procedure at L7 you can see > there is a check for struct?, which has to be dominated by a true > heap-object? check. Duplicate checks are elided. So if

Re: Autotools-generated 'configure' & 'Makefile.in' considered binaries?

Hi! Maxime Devos skribis: > Quite some packages in Guix use the Autotools system. In this system, > a 'configure.ac' and 'Makefile.am' script / makefile is written, from > which 'autoconf' & 'automake' generate a very long bash script and a > Makefile.in. Depending on the maintainer of the

Re: New review checklist

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 06:14 [+0200]: > It won't be added to Guix. Here's why it won't. > You appear to believe that > [...] > [ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea Does the following count: (define-public foo (package (name "foo") (version

Re: gcc-4.7 and gcc-4.8 compilation failure in x64

Hi! Ekaitz Zarraga skribis: > More specifically I mean the output of that command is: > > ./md-unwind-support.h:60:47: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type [...] > build of /gnu/store/bx2zldsx3by529hri5pfx15k12f67gzb-gcc-4.7.4.drv failed Could you try building it with an older

Re: New review checklist

Dear Liliana, On 2022-04-01 04:14, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote: in the sequel find the new review checklist, effective immediately. Failure to apply it will result in the confiscation of your machine for the purpose of making it usable for continuous integration. The last patch I submitted

Re: Compiling rust things without cargo (super WIP POC)

Recently I did the bevy (game engine) hello world tutorial[1]. To facilitate less slow iteration time when developing, it supports dynamic linking, disabling some optimizations, and using the lld linker for fast linking, although using lld failed for me. When running cargo build, only your

Re: LibreSSL?

Hi, Leo Famulari skribis: > I noticed that some Guix packages depend on LibreSSL, but it seems that > we are not successfully keeping this package up to date with upstream > security releases: > > https://www.libressl.org/releases.html > > Will anyone step up to maintain this package? Or should

Re: Compiling rust things without cargo (super WIP POC)

Hi, Maxime Devos skribis: > I invite you to take a look at > . > It contains a minimal rust library (libhello) and a minimal 'hello > world'-style application that uses 'libhello'. > > To simulate how Guix compiles C software (but here

Re: Formalizing teams

Hi David, david larsson skribis: > On 2022-01-03 16:22, Ludovic Courtès wrote: [...] >> This brings a related but slightly different topic: how to let >> people >> filter incoming patches and bug reports in general. >> How does it even work on git*.com? Do they let you subscribe to >>

Re: Deprecating legacy build phase style when cross-compiling vs. native

Hi Josselin, Josselin Poiret skribis: > Looking at guix/build-system/gnu.scm [2], we have gnu-build > vs. gnu-cross-build, which are responsible for native vs. cross-builds. > The former uses with-build-variables to set the legacy build variables > such as %output and %outputs (see the def in

Re: Compiling rust things without cargo (super WIP POC)

Ludovic Courtès schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 11:10 [+0200]: > I guess the whole question is whether that technique can be made to work > for the vast majority of Rust packages.  I’d suggest working in that > direction: writing a build system as a first step, using it in all the > Rust packages, and

Re: Autotools-generated 'configure' & 'Makefile.in' considered binaries?

Hi Ludo, April 1, 2022 11:01 AM, "Ludovic Courtès" wrote: > > This is conceptually the “right thing”, but it raises a significant > bootstrapping problem. Our bootstrap path currently focuses on being > able to run shell scripts, in particular ‘configure’ scripts, before we > can even build

Re: Compiling rust things without cargo (super WIP POC)

Ludovic Courtès schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 11:10 [+0200]: > Overall, I’m afraid Rust packaging is getting out of hands and we’re all > looking elsewhere.  For example, that Rust packages live in their own > separate world means there’s no tooling available, leading to poor QA, a > proliferation

Re: Autotools-generated 'configure' & 'Makefile.in' considered binaries?

Ludovic Courtès schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 10:58 [+0200]: > As a first milestone, maybe we could start running ‘autoreconf’ more > often, for packages higher in the graph.  We could change the > ‘bootstrap’ build phase to do that unless it’s explicitly turned off. > It may turn out to be a

Getting the name of file-like objects

Hi everyone. I'm currently writing a set of helper functions (usually written using `computed-file`  which act on file like objects to transform them in some way. For instance, I have a `decompress` function which, given a file-like object pointing to an archive, will return a computed file

Re: better error messages through assertions

Hi, On 3/30/22 05:37, Ludovic Courtès wrote: What is the preferred mechanism for exceptions? For Guix code, SRFI-34/35. Likewise, what record system should I use? SRFI-9. (Perhaps we should put answers to these questions in the “Coding Style” section of the manual.) As I've looked

Re: New review checklist

>-- would the commit need to be let-bound here? You seem to already know the answer, which is 'no'. Aside, 'let-binding' is not the opposite of 'hard-coding'. Kind regards, T G-R Sent on the go. Excuse or enjoy my brevity.

Re: Video Conference

March 31, 2022 7:53 PM, "Yasuaki Kudo" wrote: > Hello, > > From time to time, I think about audio/video mixer (.i.e. video conference > software like BBB or > Jitsi) , with the intension of making it highly modular that it can be freely > remixed and > reinvented by volunteer participants. >

Re: better error messages through assertions

Hi, On 3/30/22 09:28, Andy Wingo wrote: Too bad about all that other crap about checking whether the index is in range and the field is boxed or not, though :-/ Probably there is a better design... Andy For the index-out-of-range part, when I saw `record-accessor`, I thought of it as

Re: New review checklist

Hi Maxime, Am Freitag, dem 01.04.2022 um 08:30 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 06:14 [+0200]: > > It won't be added to Guix.  Here's why it won't. > > You appear to believe that > > [...] > > [ ] hard-coding the commit field is a good idea > > Does

Re: New review checklist

Hi Maxime, Am Freitag, dem 01.04.2022 um 19:46 +0200 schrieb Maxime Devos: > [...] > I know there have been some discussions in the past about whether > git-version should be used when a commit is explicitly chosen, > whether > tags should be used instead of commits, how high a risk there is that

Re: New review checklist

Liliana Marie Prikler schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 19:03 [+0200]: > Hi Maxime, > > [...] > > > > -- would the commit need to be let-bound here? > This discussion has already been had elsewhere, but to reiterate, my > reasoning is that if you can't trust upstream tags to remain valid, you > need

Reviewing the diff when updating a package?

Hello Maxime, Maxime Devos writes: > Patch is not yet ready (I'm looking at the source code diff for > anything ‘suspicious’), just reserving a bug number and avoiding double > work. Will send an actual patch later. I hope you don't mind me asking what do you mean by ‘suspicious’? Is it

Re: Video Conference

Hi, 2 years ago, I joined meet.coop , a video conference service cooperative and explored the business potential in Japan. The coop hosted BBB but the gap I discovered was that the potential customers in Japan would not be interested unless the service is customized to their exact needs -

New Swedish PO file for 'shepherd' (version 0.9.0rc1)

Hello, gentle maintainer. This is a message from the Translation Project robot. A revised PO file for textual domain 'shepherd' has been submitted by the Swedish team of translators. The file is available at: https://translationproject.org/latest/shepherd/sv.po (We can arrange things so

Re: Deprecating legacy build phase style when cross-compiling vs. native

Daniel Meißner schreef op vr 01-04-2022 om 12:26 [+0200]: > I am also wondering: How are multiple outputs handled with gexps and > #$output? #~(do-stuff #$output:lib #$output:static #$output:bin #$output:doc ...) Greetings, Maxime. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message

Possible missed translatability of plural string in shepherd

Hi, when translating shepherd to Swedish, I saw that the plural string on https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/tree/modules/shepherd/service.scm#n1362 ("~a connections still in use after ~a termination.") doesn't seem to be translatable. Only the singular case of the string is

Re: Deprecating legacy build phase style when cross-compiling vs. native

Hi, Ludovic Courtès writes: > The easiest change is to replace: > > %output > > with: > > (assoc-ref %outputs "out") > > It’s a simple search-and-replace. > > The next step would be to use gexps and #$output, but that can be done > incrementally over time IMO. I have a patch in that