Re: wip-armhf branch ready for wider testing

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 08:09:42PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Congrats on all the progress made! These are good news indeed! > It would be nice to have a couple of build machines for this platform. > If anyone reading this wants to help, please let us know! On which kind of machines does th

Re: wip-gobject-introspection

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Federico Beffa wrote: > After rebasing the branch I've re-built xorg-server locally and seen > the same test failure that occurred on hydra. I thought: "Good, now I > have a way to investigate" and rebuilt with "--keep-failed" and ... > the test passed! > I then re

Re: wip-gobject-introspection

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 7:57 PM, Federico Beffa wrote: > I've also noticed that xorg-server failed to pass a test on hydra. I'm > surprised because on my x86_64 machine everything goes smooth. Maybe > the rebase will help as I see that master has a newer xorg-server > version. After rebasing the

Re: wip-gobject-introspection

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Federico Beffa wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the branch is based on master before core-up

Re: Match-error for patches

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 05:32:36PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Andreas Enge skribis: > > There is no ~/.config/guix. When is it created? > The first time ‘guix pull’ is run. Okay. I have never run "guix pull", only "git pull". > Presumably that means that PATCH is #f, which can happen if > ‘

Re: Match-error for patches

Andreas Enge skribis: > On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 03:21:33PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> Could it be that the installed Guix was miscompiled? Does >> ~/.config/guix/latest exist? > > There is no ~/.config/guix. When is it created? The first time ‘guix pull’ is run. > I also tried to remove

Re: Match-error for patches

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 03:21:33PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Could it be that the installed Guix was miscompiled? Does > ~/.config/guix/latest exist? There is no ~/.config/guix. When is it created? I also tried to remove the installed guix (except for the database, of course), "make distcl

Re: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 07:15:01AM -0800, Jason Self wrote: Alex Kost wrote: > IIUC it applies to all the files. Quotation from > : > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > In lieu of a licence

Re: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

Alex Kost wrote: > IIUC it applies to all the files. Quotation from > : > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > In lieu of a licence > > Fonts and documents in this site are not pieces of property or > merchandise items; they carr

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

Alex Kost skribis: > Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-17 19:28 +0300) wrote: > >> Alex Kost skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote: >>> Ian Denhardt skribis: > Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF: Thanks Ian for the update. I forgot the

Re: Match-error for patches

Andreas Enge skribis: > something very curious is right now (git 561fb6c) happening. > > $ make install > $ ./pre-inst-env guix build --no-substitutes -n soprano > The following derivation would be built: >/gnu/store/f0j3r6h2q4j449y64wz6759acdjgpz7j-soprano-2.9.4.drv > $ guix build --no-subst

Re: Listing processes that use old files

Kete Foy skribis: > Enhancement request for a notice of processes running old files after > upgrading a package. > In this case, the upgraded package would be a dependency of another process. > This is crucial for running patched software without security > vulnerabilities. > A guix command for l

Re: Fwd: [gnu.org #954922] Vague "licensing" for the symbola font.

Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-17 19:28 +0300) wrote: > Alex Kost skribis: > >> Ludovic Courtès (2015-01-16 23:37 +0300) wrote: >> >>> Ian Denhardt skribis: >>> Latest word on the Symbola font from the FSF: >>> >>> Thanks Ian for the update. >>> >>> I forgot the details, but IIRC Alex Kost was th

Match-error for patches

Hello, something very curious is right now (git 561fb6c) happening. $ make install $ ./pre-inst-env guix build --no-substitutes -n soprano The following derivation would be built: /gnu/store/f0j3r6h2q4j449y64wz6759acdjgpz7j-soprano-2.9.4.drv $ guix build --no-substitutes -n soprano Backtrace:

Re: gobject-introspection typelibs and shared libraries

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:39:52AM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > > would also be okay. But if we go for the latter, I think you should bring > > it up with the gcc project first. > I expressed my opinion on this here > https://lists.gnu.org/a

Re: wip-gobject-introspection

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Federico Beffa writes: > >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Mark H Weaver wrote: >>> At this point, it would be good to rebase (not merge) the >>> 'wip-gobject-introspection' branch on current master. Presently, the >>> branch is based o

Re: gobject-introspection typelibs and shared libraries

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > Why do you suggest that my message was inspired by feelings or the mood > of the day? In fact, it was rather by the principles and design choices > we have made (without necessarily writing them down) in the past. > Especially with little avai