Re: Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?
Pierre Neidhardt writes: > I've (finally) pushed racket-minimal. > Hooray! > > Now to the Racket importer... Anyone? > Dimakakos? :) Nice! It will be very useful. I've put some research into a build system for racket, and sadly it isn't trivial to match the racket package system to guix. There is a lot of state handling in racket specific files, since every package is indexed by linking the specific folder of a package. Right now I'm creating these files ad-hoc but it doens't seem the best approach, since racket is really slow searching for the dependencies in many folders. At the same time, racket tries sometims to rebuild packages that are passed as inputs. There are also circular dependencies and other stuff that need to be ironed out. I'm also talking with the creator of racket2nix, a similar project for nix and he had the same problems, so we discussed about working for a solution for both package managers. So in conclusion, I don't have a specific roadmap, but I'm still working on it.
Re: Performance improvements
That is really great! Thanks for your hard work!
Re: GNU Guix maintainer collective expands
Thanks for all your past, present and future hard work to all new and older maintainers! This is great news!
Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project
P writes: >> Do we have evidence that rms has caused harm to GNU's projects? > > in short: yes. > > lots of people have talked about this, but here is one thread I've seen > recently: https://pleroma.site/notice/9nh9bWH6RbrQinMp1M Thanks, very interesting thread. And I agree this is not the appropriate list for this discussion, I replied trying to understand more of the situation and people's feeling on the matter.
Re: Joint statement on the GNU Project
Ludovic Courtès writes: > We, a group of GNU maintainers sharing a vision for a stronger GNU > Project, are publishing this statement today: > > https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/ Hello to everyone. First of all I think that Guix blog was certainly not the proper place for such an announcement. I agree that software, especially free is a political issue and statement. On the other hand, there shall be a separation since many people are involved in Guix and may not be at the same page ideologically with the project's maintainers and so could be alienated. On the subject, I think that the discussion of rms's position in GNU is valid but that at the same time such an announcment should be made after a careful consideration and research. Do we have evidence that rms has caused harm to GNU's projects? Even in the aspect of diversity and community building, do we have evidence that rms is block or is it that we just play along with a media campaign, that was in a fact a full on personality attack on rms, by going as far as misquoting him. I would like to hear you expand on ways that the empowerment of all computer users was undermined by rms. I write all these in good faith. On one hand I can accept that if there is concrete evidence, on the other hand I see in the web media, people, associated with companies that would like the software freedom fronts to collapse, bash and drive out a person that offered his life to create and support the movement. In my opinion the timing is a bit off. By trying to solve whatever issue the community has with rms at this particular point, is like validating the misinformation that has spread this last month about his name. It's like the whole character assasination that happens on web is valid so we need to cancel rms. I think this is totally unfair. At the same time it's also important to move our community forward in ways that include every person and also enable people of all kinds of background to take part in GNU and this way realize the software freedom ideals. So to sum up it would be nice to expand a bit on the announcement. My main questions are: 1. How does the GNU project operate, in the light of all the different projects, and what role and influence had rms as the head of GNU? 2. How does rms with his afformentioned role undermine diversity and inclusivity of people working in GNU projects? 3. What would be your suggestion on the next day of GNU when rms hypothetically steps down? Is he a single issue or are the other issues that our community shall overcome. 4. In the case that rms is actually harming to our community how do we protect free software ideals while removing a person so closely related to their creation?
Re: Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?
Thanks for all the motivation everyone, I've started working on it so I'll start thread later or tomorrow with the progress I've done and any questions that occur to me.
Re: Racket packages: formerly Move DrRacket to a separate output?
Christopher Lemmer Webber writes: > I think nobody has written a Racket importer. I have it as a > longstanding background TODO task but clearly haven't found the > time... despite the fact that I desperately want the feature. I could start working on this, starting tomorrow. I will need a bit of guidance though, shall I open a new thread or use this one?
Re: We need your feedback of the documentation videos!
Laura Lazzati writes: > Hi Guix! > > > > Kind regards! > Laura Just watched the videos, great work! I agree with Florian that translations would be really cool. Also I think it would be nice to have a video that is about why guix works this way and what are advantages of the ways it works. The packaging videos were amazing, clear and very useful. Thanks for the beautiful work, Dimos.
Re: New episode of Libre Lounge out interviewing Ludovic about Guix!
Nice discussion and a nice podcast in general! Thanks for this. --,--@ Dimos
Re: GNU Guix 1.0.0 released
Ludovic Courtès writes: > We are thrilled to announce the release of GNU Guix 1.0.0! > [...] Thanks for all the beautiful work by all the wonderful people. I'm hoping for many great releases and lot's of fun!
Re: Regarding freedom issues
swedebugia writes: > Hi. > I had the idea of integrating guix more with GNU when it comes to packages > with freedom issues. > > The idea is to add to guix a way to inform the user that the package they > just searched for is not included in guix because of freedom issues. > > The idea is that when we refuse a package to be included we add it with a > short reason to this list. > > Something like this > (issues > (package odoo > (reason "trapping users by withholding update scripts, see > gnu.org/link.to.article" > (alternatives '(dolibarr tryton smbledger ledger hledger gnucash))) > > This makes it clear to the user that they can scratch the itch and fix the > problems by contacting upstream, fork or whatever or choose a better > alternative. > > What do you think? > -- > Sent from my k-9 mail for Android. I like this as well. We could then make lists of alternatives, so they could be resusable in similar contexts. The thing is this seems quite a bit of work, but I think it's in the right direction. Maybe reuse some catalogs of "non-freedom respecting" software is doable.
