Hi,
Instead of the current behavior (below), I would like something easily
readable without scrolling and scrolling because a lot of information
about new/upgraded packages. For instance,
--8<---cut here---start->8---
$ guix pull --list-generations=summary
Gen
Hi,
On Fri, 09 Oct 2020 at 03:25, zimoun wrote:
> Using Guix a0d4aa2, the package ’corrode’ fails to build because:
>
> Configuring corrode-0.1.0.0...
> Setup.hs: Encountered missing dependencies:
> language-c >=0.4 && <0.6
>
> and the package ’ghc-language-c’ had been updated to 0.8.1 by the co
On Wed, Oct 20, 2021 at 04:06:21PM +0200, Rostislav Svoboda wrote:
> which, in turn, surprises me, since I have 32GB of RAM. (And I thought
> already I bought too much, ugh :)
I think that should be enough, even for qtwebengine / Chromium!
But maybe you are building with a high level of paralleli
On 2021-06-09, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> There have been at least three newly added "This packages" since I
> submitted this patch, so wondering if we can at least get the simple
> case merged before getting too caught up in all the potential
> improvements?
And up until today, that list grew to
Andrew Tropin writes:
[…]
> According to what I see in the shepherd tests:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/shepherd.git/tree/tests/replacement.sh?h=4c5176f5a7a5a1e7d7f258f585e8ed127a21b99a#n61
>
> and how it's implemented in home-shepherd:
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gn
I pushed my patch to master as
c5881ff1f3ea321401b0f040c4e795bcd452ef5d, so tentatively closing this
bug.
Note that, if you encountered the issue, this patch is not enough: you
already have .texi files that contain lots of "??". You'll need to
start from a clean checkout, or at least clean the tex
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:38:02 + help-debb...@gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking
System) wrote:
Thanks for fixing that! I'll just run this script I've been using again:
https://git.sr.ht/~jgart/dotfiles/tree/master/item/bin/executable_guix-prepare-tree
On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian skribis:
>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
>> just go ahead an
