On 17-02-22 15:26:31, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 09:15:12PM +0100, Mathieu Lirzin wrote:
> > Leo Famulari writes:
> > > +(list (string-append "PATH=" #$lsof "/bin")
> > > + #$@(if http-proxy
> > > + (list (string-app
On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:20:38PM +, ng0 wrote:
> Thanks!
> I was hoping this change (added 127.0.0.1:9050) in a test config would
> pick up the .onion of bayfront I have in there, but it didn't happen.
Does it work on a system besides GuixSD?
> In the comments you mentioned https_proxy is a
On 17-02-23 12:05:45, Leo Famulari wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:20:38PM +, ng0 wrote:
> > Thanks!
> > I was hoping this change (added 127.0.0.1:9050) in a test config would
> > pick up the .onion of bayfront I have in there, but it didn't happen.
>
> Does it work on a system besides Gui
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:06:48PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Since I lack an understanding of why the “guile” argument could ever
> purposefully be set to “#f” I cannot come up with a nice fix. Instead
> of a nice fix I have found a really gross fix:
>
> --8<---cut here--
In my opinion, the recent bug #25775 (Can't install packages after guix
pull) [0] exposed a sort of meta-bug: there are a significant number of
users who were still using the guix-daemon from 0.10.0.
It seems unlikely that they have been updating all of root's
packages except for the guix package.
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 05:06:48PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Since I lack an understanding of why the “guile” argument could ever
>> purposefully be set to “#f” I cannot come up with a nice fix. Instead
>> of a nice fix I have found a really gross fix:
>>
>> --8<---
We can make package 'daemon' aware if we provide the meta data in
channels, see 22...@debbugs.gnu.org. guix package could also suggest
upgrading with even numbers. Say running 0.12 guix on 0.10
guix-daemon.
