Leo, Leo Famulari wrote on 21/01/18 at 23:37: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 04:47:14PM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: >> Danny, >> >> Danny Milosavljevic wrote on 20/01/18 at 11:40: >>> We should change that in core-updates-next, if possible. >>> >>> I think that native-inputs shouldn't end up in the final binary as a >>> reference [...] >> This has been discussed before, and I agree. (I started a branch to do >> so but it breaks quite a few things and it got tedious. I think I'm >> ready for more now.)
[...] > I'd rather we do it somewhere else than core-updates. > > It's already very difficult to complete the core-updates cycles. We > should limit core-updates to updates of core packages, and handle big > changes to Guix itself on their own branches. Er, yeah. Definitely. Unfortunate quoting on my part if it seemed like I was implying otherwise. This is the right thing to do, but doing it on core-updates is going to hurt rather than help anyone. Kind regards, T G-R
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
