On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 08:17:20PM +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> > That path is only 98 characters long. What limit do you think it is
> > exceeding?
It may be a shell restriction rather than a kernel restriction. I run
into the same thing with my binary path rewriting. My solution is to
truncate
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 18:33:56 +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 06.05.2018 um 16:05 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
>> In the case of their addon
>> system, they encourage installation of non-free addons, which is against
>> the Free Software Distribution Guidelines (FSDG), and is the same reason
>> that
Leo Famulari transcribed 3.0K bytes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 07:27:46PM +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> > I have inserted a build log of a failing test from
> > GNUnet commit f13af7e7281064380def70d0b4392b4351211655
>
> [...]
>
> > TEST: Viewing all stats...FAIL: unexpected output:
> > osys
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 07:27:46PM +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> I have inserted a build log of a failing test from
> GNUnet commit f13af7e7281064380def70d0b4392b4351211655
[...]
> TEST: Viewing all stats...FAIL: unexpected output:
> osystem othe
Leo Famulari transcribed 2.5K bytes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 06:59:23PM +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> > we did some changes in GNUnet where my part of the job reminded me again
> > of the path length Linux has as default.
> >
> > I know there's at least (only?) 1 file in the Linux kernel which d
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 06:59:23PM +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> we did some changes in GNUnet where my part of the job reminded me again
> of the path length Linux has as default.
>
> I know there's at least (only?) 1 file in the Linux kernel which defines
> the path length. Where else would we n
Hi folks,
we did some changes in GNUnet where my part of the job reminded me again
of the path length Linux has as default.
I know there's at least (only?) 1 file in the Linux kernel which defines
the path length. Where else would we need to apply changes as a distro?
I think if there are really
Hi Chris,
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 00:12:42 +0200
Chris Marusich wrote:
> Thank you for writing a patch! It looks good to me. We will need to
> apply this to the core-updates branch, right? I think that changes to
> the ant-build-system will cause all packages that use it to be rebuilt.
I've push
Alex Kost writes:
[…]
> I don't understand what mechanism you mean. Why it cannot simply be
> removed?
‘guix import elpa’ should remove ‘let-alist’ or ‘guix lint’ should
notify ‘let-alist’ is already present in current Emacs.
>> ‘let-alist’
>> shouln't clutter much if it stays in Guix package
Oleg Pykhalov (2018-05-04 21:50 +0300) wrote:
> In addion to my previous answer.
>
> Oleg Pykhalov writes:
>
> […]
>
>>> 'let-alist' is a part of Emacs (that's why it was removed by commit
>>> 469c7ce0¹). Is there a reason to add it?
>
> […]
>
>> Elpa importer could probably exclude ‘let-alist’
Am 06.05.2018 um 15:58 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
> I suspect that most Guix users are more technical than average users and
> would be much less bothered by a kluge for the time being.
I would be bothered by such a kludge, which IMHO is of no use.
--
Regards
Hartmut Goebel
| Hartmut Goebel
Am 06.05.2018 um 16:05 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
> In the case of their addon
> system, they encourage installation of non-free addons, which is against
> the Free Software Distribution Guidelines (FSDG), and is the same reason
> that Debian isn't a recommended free software distribution.
>
My aim is t
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 10:05:35AM -0400, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> Packaging Firefox as-is is not an option. In the case of their addon
> system, they encourage installation of non-free addons, which is against
> the Free Software Distribution Guidelines (FSDG), and is the same reason
> that Debian i
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 11:48:28 +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 06.05.2018 um 03:24 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
>> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 19:06:27 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>>> I have noticed somepeople advocating for packaging Firefox in GNU Guix,
>>> and since FF still has freedom issues
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 06:01:59 +, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> Mike Gerwitz transcribed 2.2K bytes:
>> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 19:06:27 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>> > I have noticed somepeople advocating for packaging Firefox in GNU Guix,
>> > and since FF still has freedom issues, I see
On Sun, May 06, 2018 at 11:48:28AM +0200, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 06.05.2018 um 03:24 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
> > On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 19:06:27 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> >> I have noticed somepeople advocating for packaging Firefox in GNU Guix,
> >> and since FF still has freedom i
Am 06.05.2018 um 03:24 schrieb Mike Gerwitz:
> On Sat, May 05, 2018 at 19:06:27 -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>> I have noticed somepeople advocating for packaging Firefox in GNU Guix,
>> and since FF still has freedom issues, I see it as a no-go.
> A simple option for now is to package FF b
17 matches
Mail list logo
