Hi, Philip Kaludercic <phil...@posteo.net> skribis:
> Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerm...@kolabnow.com> writes: > >>> My fear is that with further upstream development, >>> there might be conflicts between the packages I inherit from (emacs, >>> emacs-no-x, emacs-minimal) and the packages I have definined in [1]. >>> An easy fix might be to not rely on the upstream package definitions, >>> but I am not certain if there are any down-sides I haven't considered. >>> >>> Of course, if the Guix project isn't interested in providing old >>> versions of packages, then I will continue look into maintaining my own >>> channel. >> >> I don’t have much experience with the Guix projects and its preferences >> and practices, so I can’t tell if it would be interested or not, >> unfortunately. I just wanted to mention that if not, another upstreaming >> option could be the Guix-Past channel: >> >> https://gitlab.inria.fr/guix-hpc/guix-past > > While interesting, this appears to be a closed project, so I am > uncertain how I could contribute my package definitions upstream. Contributions to Guix-Past are open to anyone. Unfortunately, creating an account on gitlab.inria.fr is pretty tedious (essentially you need to put me as your “mentor” when applying for an account), in addition to being annoying in the first place. I think we could consider moving it to a more convenient place, be it sr.ht, notabug.org, or even Savannah (in which case we’d use the same workflow as with the rest of Guix). Thoughts? > Would it be unconventional for me to try and set up my own repository? No, of course not. It’s better if we can team up IMO, but if maintaining your own repo works better for you, that’s okay. Thanks, Ludo’.
