Nils Gillmann transcribed 1.3K bytes: > Ludovic Courtès transcribed 474 bytes: > > Hi, > > > > Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> skribis: > > > > > Seems like ftp.gnu.org is currently either very slow or having troubles > > > with the actual software distribution. The signatures landed on there, > > > the rest has yet to materialize. > > > > I think you made a mistake: > > > > gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig > > gnurl-7.59.0.tar.gz.sig.sig > > > > You’ll have to reupload without the extra .sig. :-) > > There were (are?) some issues on FTP side, they applied my new key > before realizing my new is too recent for their gpg. I'm currently > waiting on the result of the thread about this. > Furthermore it seems like the system can not cope very well with > anything that is not gpg and uses .sig ;) My signify signatures are > .sig, my gpg signatures are .asc .. > Anyway, we have to resolve some issues and archive some files in our > directory. > > Thanks :) > > > I’ve applied the patch since there’s a fallback URL anyway. > > > > Thanks, > > Ludo’. > > I'm looking into switching gnurl to bmake + mk-config. I've already got the > tools on my side. > Do you want me to continue the native autotools support for Guix in gnurl, > derived from curl? Or would it be okay to switch guix over to bmake + > mk-config if it works out for gnurl? > > I'm asking because I could manage to support 2 build-system, it just would > be a bit unconvenient for me.
Correction: I noticed this will make building gnurl unpleasant on guix side. I would have to introduce the bmake + mk + the bootstrapping of bmake without make in the build system I'm currently working on.. in Guix, which is something I'm pretty sure will not be taken into master. Alternative: a simple bmake using the gnu-build-system (and therefore depending on make deeper down the graph) would be accepted I guess?
