Re: guix package web UI?

Hi Louis, (+ guix-devel) > Hmm. I can't get it to compile. It throws this error when running in the > environment: > > ice-9/boot-9.scm:109:20: In procedure # ice-9/boot-9.scm:100:6 (thrown-k . args)>: > ice-9/boot-9.scm:109:20: no code for module (gnu packages) > make: *** [Makefile:755: guix/w

Re: Guix 0.13 manual does not include UEFI documentation

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hi, > > Marius Bakke skribis: > >> It seems we forgot to include the UEFI documentation update in the 0.13 >> release. Is it possible to do a "hotfix" release of the manual? Users are >> already asking about this on #guix.. Oops! > > Could you push the fix to ‘version-0

Re: 01/01: gnu: glib: Update to 2.53.1.

Marius Bakke writes: > Kei Kebreau writes: > >> Should I revert the unstable commits on gnome-updates and replace them >> with their equivalents? I didn't intend to use unstable versions of the >> GNOME-related software. My intention was to upgrade packages necessary >> for gjs to build with min

Re: SHA-1 vs SHA256 + public key

Mark H Weaver skribis: > I wrote: >> The hashes included in the announcement are not able to provide secure >> authentication, regardless of what hash function is used, because the >> announcement itself might have been modified > > I forgot that the announcement itself was signed, which invalida

Re: Guix 0.13 manual does not include UEFI documentation

Hi, Marius Bakke skribis: > It seems we forgot to include the UEFI documentation update in the 0.13 > release. Is it possible to do a "hotfix" release of the manual? Users are > already asking about this on #guix.. Oops! Could you push the fix to ‘version-0.13.0’? I’ll rebuild/upload the manua

Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript

Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Leo Famulari writes: >> >>> The subject of the two Ghostscripts came up last October, but we didn't >>> really discuss it: >>> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-10/msg00598.html >>> >>> The canonical Ghostscript is develop

Re: Upcoming OpenSSL updates

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:40:02AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On May 25 between 1200–1600UTC, OpenSSL will release some bug-fix > updates: > > https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-announce/2017-May/98.html > > Apparently, none of the fixes are for security problems. > > However, I sti

Re: Switching to Artifex Ghostscript

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 03:06:41PM +0200, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Marius Bakke writes: > > Leo Famulari writes: > >> Both programs are distributed under the AGPL, as far as I can tell. But > >> Artifex Ghostscript is actively developed, which I think is very > >> important for C software that is

Re: New Danish PO file for 'guix' (version 0.13.0)

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 04:42:04PM +0200, Translation Project Robot wrote: > Hello, gentle maintainer. > > This is a message from the Translation Project robot. > > A revised PO file for textual domain 'guix' has been submitted > by the Danish team of translators. The file is available at: > >

Re: New Danish PO file for 'guix-packages' (version 0.13.0)

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 05:37:05PM +0200, Translation Project Robot wrote: > Hello, gentle maintainer. > > This is a message from the Translation Project robot. > > A revised PO file for textual domain 'guix-packages' has been submitted > by the Danish team of translators. The file is available

Re: 01/01: gnu: glib: Update to 2.53.1.

Kei Kebreau writes: > Should I revert the unstable commits on gnome-updates and replace them > with their equivalents? I didn't intend to use unstable versions of the > GNOME-related software. My intention was to upgrade packages necessary > for gjs to build with minimal failures > (glib -> gobje

Re: guix package web UI?

Hi Louis, > From reading around on the internet, it appears that there was a web ui in > the process > of being made for guix at some point. I can't seem to find any evidence of > an actual > web UI being made. I'm not much of an emacs person (too used to atom > keybindings), > so I would be real

Re: store reference detection (was Re: JARs and reference scanning)

Hartmut Goebel writes: > Am 12.05.2017 um 23:51 schrieb Mark H Weaver: >> What's the motivation for this proposal, if not to allow the scanner to >> see references that would otherwise be obfuscated? > The motivation is to have references at all. See >