Ludovico,
I think it is a good idea to add roll-back to the guix pull with a
flag of some sort. However, I would be wary of people unintentionally
rolling-back packages for not understanding the usecase of such a
feature. However, I suppose that we can not "idiot-proof" everything
because
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi Roel,
>
> Roel Janssen skribis:
>
>> I'd like to change the way the symlinks to custom profiles are created.
>> Here's what currently happens:
>>
>> $ guixr package -i hello -p guix-profiles/test
>> $ ls -l guix-profiles
>> lrwxrwxrwx. 1 user group 25 Jul 3 19:53
Hello,
As this blog article[1] says, Firefox 52's end of life will happen on
August 28, 2018. That is, in 47 days. I imagine that by that time
Icecat 60 will be released, but it seems that we are pretty far from
being able to package it, because of the Rust packages that are needed.
There might
Orians, Jeremiah (DTMB) writes:
>> Gash seems to be a low-hanging fruit and a relatively easy thing,
>> because it's architecture-independent. How
>> far is it from being able to run typical 'configure' scripts?
> Well we would have to replace the parser at a bare minimum
Yes, the parser is
Ludovic Courtès writes:
>>> I think that's the main difficulty. I think we'd rather not have
>>> separate bootstrap paths for Intel GNU/Linux on one hand, and everything
>>> else on the other hand.
>>
>> Well, due to the design of mescc-tools; the bootstrap paths only have to be
>> divergent up
> Sounds nice. I wonder if Jan was referring to something else then?
Probably alternate operating systems like Hurd is my guess but I'm probably
wrong.
> There’s still the question of GNU/Hurd, though, which requires a vastly
> different libc.
Fortunately Janneke has done a good job making
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:29:02PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> Pjotr Prins writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> >> “guix pull” updates its own profile only. It updates
> >> ~/.config/guix/current, so you need to use Guix from
> >>
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 17:57:01 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Mike Gerwitz skribis:
[...]
>> Do you have a couple examples of what you think would be beneficial to
>> pull form Guix? I'm certainly open to the idea where it makes sense;
>> there's no sense in us duplicating effort
Hello OriansJ,
"Orians, Jeremiah (DTMB)" skribis:
>> I think that's the main difficulty. I think we'd rather not have
>> separate bootstrap paths for Intel GNU/Linux on one hand, and everything
>> else on the other hand.
>
> Well, due to the design of mescc-tools; the bootstrap paths only have
Hi Chris,
Thanks for your feedback (and apologies for the hiccups!).
Chris Marusich skribis:
> Thank you for your hard work on this improvement! One of the reasons I
> have always been a little scared to run "guix pull" frequently is
> because it was difficult to roll back. Now that the
Hello,
Mike Gerwitz skribis:
>> It’d be nice if synopses and descriptions in the Womb could contain
>> Texinfo markup.
>>
>> In fact, perhaps it’d make sense to reverse the roles, i.e., have the
>> Womb take (some of its) descriptions from Guix?
>
> `blub' in pkgblurbs (which is what
Hello,
Ricardo Wurmus skribis:
> after reviewing the current state of the project “Improve the user
> experience for the "guix package" command line tool”, for which Gábor
> and I mentored an Outreachy intern, we have decided to terminate the
> internship at the midterm evaluations.
This is a
Pjotr Prins writes:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> “guix pull” updates its own profile only. It updates
>> ~/.config/guix/current, so you need to use Guix from
>> ~/.config/guix/current/bin.
>
> And it says so after guix pull. It is easy to forget
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 04:17:32PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> “guix pull” updates its own profile only. It updates
> ~/.config/guix/current, so you need to use Guix from
> ~/.config/guix/current/bin.
And it says so after guix pull. It is easy to forget however.
Why don't we (also) add it to
Pjotr Prins writes:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:35:13AM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote:
>> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>> > I have just pushed a new ‘guix pull’.
>> >
>> > Feedback welcome!
>>
>> The biggest hiccup for me was that I didn't realize at first that I had
>> to run
After adding the paths it is fine. So environment is not picking them
up.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:35:29PM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> So I updated guix pull multiple times :) and both daemon and client
> are at
>
> guix (GNU Guix) ecba50bb79a49b317c4b1e718f4732b36438227f
>
> Now I am
So I updated guix pull multiple times :) and both daemon and client
are at
guix (GNU Guix) ecba50bb79a49b317c4b1e718f4732b36438227f
Now I am creating an environment to build the source tree with
env -i /bin/bash --login --noprofile --norc
guix environment guix --ad-hoc help2man git strace
> I think that's the main difficulty. I think we'd rather not have
> separate bootstrap paths for Intel GNU/Linux on one hand, and everything
> else on the other hand.
Well, due to the design of mescc-tools; the bootstrap paths only have to be
divergent up to the M1-macro level.
After that, we
> Could you expound a bit? That’s a very short summary for all the sweat
> you’ve put in it. :-)
My apologies, at the time I sent the mail in a hurry.
Basically now instead of converting unit files to services individually it
happens in bulk so that it can check if there is a corresponding
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 01:04:38PM +0200, Pjotr Prins wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:35:13AM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote:
> > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> >
> > > I have just pushed a new ‘guix pull’.
> > >
> > > Feedback welcome!
> >
> > The biggest hiccup for me was that I
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 02:35:13AM -0700, Chris Marusich wrote:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>
> > I have just pushed a new ‘guix pull’.
> >
> > Feedback welcome!
>
> The biggest hiccup for me was that I didn't realize at first that I had
> to run "guix pull" twice to upgrade from
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> I have just pushed a new ‘guix pull’.
>
> Feedback welcome!
The biggest hiccup for me was that I didn't realize at first that I had
to run "guix pull" twice to upgrade from the old style "guix pull".
Anyway, after I finally did it, things have been
Hi Ricardo, Mark, and Ludo,
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> What do you think of pushing some package updates only to feature
> branches that follow a certain naming convention (e.g. “_update-foo” for
> updating the “foo” package), which causes Cuirass to build them and
> merge the branch into
23 matches
Mail list logo
