Le 19 janvier 2020 20:35:31 GMT-05:00, Julien Lepiller a
écrit :
>Le 19 janvier 2020 15:25:01 GMT-05:00, "Ludovic Courtès"
>a écrit :
>>Hello!
>>
>>Brett Gilio skribis:
>>
>>> Short message! I am trying to get our OCaml development system up to
>>> shape, as it is currently lagging some version
On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 07:57:30PM +0100, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> > The solution of 2. and 3. seems to write, as Ludo mentioned:
> >
> > --8<---cut here---start->8---
> > (define (make-me-a-package option1 option2)
> > (package
> > …))
> > --8<---
Hi Ludo,
In your paper "Code Staging in GNU Guix" [1], you use the following
example to illustrate how G-Expressions are hygienic ("they preserve
lexical scope across stages"):
(let ((gen-body (lambda (x)
#~(let ((x 40))
(+ x #$x)
#~(let ((x 2))
I've replaced the cache building code in gnu/packages.scm with code that
builds a sqlite database instead. I haven't finished hooking this up to
the guix search code. I'll have it ready in another day or two.
> To test "guix pull", simple "make as-derivation". Disclaim: can take
> some time :-)
>
Hi,
Rust uses #![...] for something that is definitely not a shebang
(file-wide feature tests).
Currently, our patch-shebang[1] emits a lot of warnings because of those.
Should we change patch-shebang to ignore lines starting with "#![" ?
If so, how? There's some get-char* magic that I don't u
Hi Arun,
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 20:29, Arun Isaac wrote:
> > 1.
> > How to update the index.
> > Give a look at the "pull" code and the ~/.cache/guix folder.
>
> We don't "update" the index. At every guix pull we create it
> anew. Currently, generate-package-cache in gnu/packages.scm does
> thi
zimoun writes:
> What is the final aim to have parametrized packages?
> What does it mean "parametrized"?
Easy and composable customization of packages.
> Does it mean extend the transformation options as Ludo described [2].
I think you forgot this reference. If you meant "like Ludo described
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 18:34:54 -0500 sirgazil wrote
> On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:13:54 -0500 Ludovic Courtès
> wrote
> > Hello Guix!
> >
> > One of the lessons from the 1.0.0 screw-up was that we should test the
> > graphical installer itself:
>
> And, if possible,
Hi Ludo,
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 at 00:29, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> zimoun skribis:
>
> > So knowing where the cycles are could help to transform the DaG (not
> > fully acyclic yet) to a DAG. :-)
>
> Unfortunately, the module graph necessarily contains cycles. The only
> way to avoid them would be
Hello,
Ludovic Courtès skribis:
> However, on ARMv7, Guile 3.0 segfaults as it’s building:
>
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/log/8b8c0hxvm9qa5kff168vdr3943cc2s61-guile-next-3.0.0
It seems that the regression happened between 2.9.4 and 2.9.9¹:
https://ci.guix.gnu.org/build/1687242/details
I’v
I didn't really answer your questions earlier, sorry.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:20:51 +0100
Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> I tested the Jami package we have in upstream Guix:
>
> - It fails to start on my desktop, it only works on my laptop.
What do you mean by desktop, is it even a differ
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 10:08, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
>
> Ludovic Courtès writes:
>
> > I agree. ‘package-input-rewriting’ gives us almost what you want, with
> > the limitation that implicit inputs are ignored (which is a good thing
> > sometimes, and a problem in cases where you want to experi
Hi Pierre,
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 17:56, Pierre Neidhardt wrote:
> In this case, it's trivial to use parameters to influence which compiler
> the build system will use.
I am not sure that "trivial" is the correct word. ;-)
> For gnu-build-system (with gcc, clang, etc.) we can probably do simi
Hi Ludo,
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 at 21:34, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > I feel something is lacking.
>
> I agree. ‘package-input-rewriting’ gives us almost what you want, with
> the limitation that implicit inputs are ignored (which is a good thing
> sometimes, and a problem in cases where you want t
Hello Braun, I have pushed the previous 4 patches into master, thank you!
Lars-Dominik Braun writes:
> * gnu/packages/python-crypto.scm (python-cryptography): Update to 2.8
> (python-cryptography-vectors): Update to 2.8
This is not a small change for me, as 'guix refresh -l python-cryptography'
On 12.01.20 23:13, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hello Guix!
One of the lessons from the 1.0.0 screw-up was that we should test the
graphical installer itself:
https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/gnu-guix-1.0.1-released/
I think we should try to do that before the next release; not doing it
means testi
Hi Hartmut,
Hartmut Goebel skribis:
> I experience a strange problem: The package below (stripped down to show
> the issue) uses the `qt-build-system`.
>
> When running as shown, the build fails, since the `configure` phase is
> taken from gnu-build-system.
>
> It works fine, when modifying `(@
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> I agree. ‘package-input-rewriting’ gives us almost what you want, with
> the limitation that implicit inputs are ignored (which is a good thing
> sometimes, and a problem in cases where you want to experiment with
> toolchains, as you write).
>
> What we’d need is a var
18 matches
Mail list logo
