Re: w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle'

> Just replace "struct file_handle" with "struct io_file_handle" > everywhere in the w3m source code. That will have no effect on the > operation of the program whatsoever. I used the following: (arguments `(#:tests? #f ; no 'check' target #:phases (alist-cons-before

Re: w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle'

Nikita Karetnikov writes: > Also, I'm not sure what license should be used. Should we create a new > one? > > This page [2] states that w3m is under MIT, which is an ambiguous name > of the Expat License [3]. That's incorrect. While it is true that the Expat license is sometimes ambiguously re

Re: w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle'

Nikita Karetnikov writes: > w3m raises the following error: > > istream.h:23:8: error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle' The issue here is that glibc started using "struct file_handle", which conflicts with w3m's prior use of the same name. You shouldn't need a patch for this. Just replace "

Re: Porting to mips64el

> Maybe we need a command-line interface to that? I think so. Should it be a separate file (e.g., 'guix-hash')? pgpQiP2uz7CwO.pgp Description: PGP signature

w3m: 'license'; error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle'

w3m raises the following error: istream.h:23:8: error: redefinition of 'struct file_handle' I found the needed patch [1]. But I don't want to apply it because it requires a knowledge of C. Could anyone help me to finalize the recipe? Also, I'm not sure what license should be used. Should we c

[PATCH] Inhibit duplicates in fold-packages

Here's a patch to inhibit the same package (in the sense of eq?) from being traversed more than once by fold-packages. One example where this helps is the guile-2.0 package in (gnu packages guile), which is exported in two different variables: guile-2.0 and guile-2.0/fixed. Note that even after a

Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >>> Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about the propagation of $GUILE_LOAD_PATH & >>> co. to subprocesses, because we know there’s none anyway. >> >> That policy will lead to future where libguile

Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling

Mark H Weaver skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: >> Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about the propagation of $GUILE_LOAD_PATH & >> co. to subprocesses, because we know there’s none anyway. > > That policy will lead to future where libguile-using programs break in > random ways when they

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Andreas Enge skribis: > Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >> For now, I'm going to assume that "guix-package -i guile" indeed >> *should* choose from among the newest available versions, so I'm going >> to work on fixing that. > > Yes, that was exactly my point with libjpeg - w

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Mark H Weaver skribis: > From bd192057c770ca3653828498591dbe4683b51545 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mark H Weaver > Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:02:15 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add version-compare and version>? to utils.scm. > > * guix/utils.scm (version-compare, version>?): New exported pro

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 schrieb Mark H Weaver: > For now, I'm going to assume that "guix-package -i guile" indeed > *should* choose from among the newest available versions, so I'm going > to work on fixing that. Yes, that was exactly my point with libjpeg - we would like 9 to be installed

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

I wrote: > Would "guix-package -i guile" ever choose guile-1.8.8 over guile-2.0.7 > if the latter was available? Does it not automatically choose the > newest available version? Having now looked at the code, I see that it does not. My latest upgrade implemention assumed that it did, so I'll hav

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: > >> Okay. I was relying on the fact that attempts to install a derivation >> that's already installed will ultimately be ignored, and my (admittedly >> simple) tests seem to suggest that it works properly, but perhaps this >> appro

Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Honestly, I wouldn’t worry about the propagation of $GUILE_LOAD_PATH & > co. to subprocesses, because we know there’s none anyway. That policy will lead to future where libguile-using programs break in random ways when they happen to be subprocesses of each

Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling

Mark H Weaver skribis: > The second patch is the main subject of this email. It reworks the > shell script headers at the top of 'guix-package' and the other scripts > to avoid modifying environment variables (which could propagate to > unrelated subprocesses that use libguile), and to avoid pre

Re: [PATCH] Improve shell script headers and pre-inst-env handling

Mark H Weaver skribis: > From 172011c586a96cd15e6401cf813fd6d6ea59b355 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mark H Weaver > Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:23:20 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Add noinst_SCRIPTS = pre-inst-env to Makefile.am. > > * Makefile.am: Add noinst_SCRIPTS = pre-inst-env. > --- > Ma

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Mark H Weaver skribis: >> Mark H Weaver skribis: >>> + (upgrade (if (null? upgrade-regexps) >>> + '() >>> + (filter-map (match-lambda >>> + ((name _ _ _ _) >>> +

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Hi Ludovic, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Mark H Weaver skribis: >> + (upgrade (if (null? upgrade-regexps) >> + '() >> + (filter-map (match-lambda >> + ((name _ _ _ _) >> +

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Andreas Enge skribis: > Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: >> It’s actually slightly more complex: you need to select those packages >> that are installed and for which either a newer version is available >> (per ‘version-string>?’, see gnu-maintenance.scm; should be moved to

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 schrieb Ludovic Courtès: > It’s actually slightly more complex: you need to select those packages > that are installed and for which either a newer version is available > (per ‘version-string>?’, see gnu-maintenance.scm; should be moved to > utils.scm) This reminds me

Re: Porting to mips64el

Nikita Karetnikov skribis: >> So you can either temporarily modify build-aux/download.scm to point to >> fdn.fr/..., or download the file in question by hand and check its hash >> against the one that’s in Makefile.am. > > Please append '-linux' to the following: > >

Re: [PATCH] Implement guix-package --upgrade

Hi Mark! Mark H Weaver skribis: > Here's an implementation of the -u/--upgrade option for guix-package. Nice! > + (upgrade (if (null? upgrade-regexps) > + '() > + (filter-map (match-lambda > +