Hi,
Xinglu Chen writes:
[...]
> From 90d63a46a29a8080b7f95eabcec115c5c2c6481e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> Message-Id:
> <90d63a46a29a8080b7f95eabcec115c5c2c6481e.1619869705.git.pub...@yoctocell.xyz>
> In-Reply-To:
> References:
> From: Xinglu Chen
> Date: Sat, 1 May 2021 13:31:27 +0200
> Sub
Chris Marusich writes:
> In the end, I think a packager is expected to be operating in good
> faith, in accordance with the FSDG. This means that packagers look for
> freedom issues and address them when found. It does not mean that
> packagers are expected to provide a detailed "bill of materi
Hi,
Leo Famulari writes:
> On Sun, May 02, 2021 at 12:53:07AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote:
>> My understanding is that the 'license' field of a package in Guix has
>> _always_ been meant to summarize the license restrictions associated
>> with the package source (the output of "guix build --sourc
Hi Maxim,
On Fri, May 07 2021, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> Hello Xinglu!
>
> Thank you for working on it!
You are very welcome! These are things that have annoyed me enough so I
decided (try) to fix it myself :)
>> +(define (configuration-no-default-value kind field)
>> + (configuration-error
>>
Duh! I'm so sorry about this. I had check some days (weeks?) ago, saw
it wasn't there, prepared the package then rebased. In the meantime
Sharlatan had committed it too!
Maybe we could have a `make` or `guix lint` warning for this kind of
things, I suppose they are bound to happen in the *-xyz
Hi,
I gave hyperbole [1] a try, and now if I move the point to that bug
string [bug#48262] or bug#48262 and press action key (M-RET) it
magically brings me to the debbugs with that bug.
Footnotes:
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/hyperbole/
--
Alexey
Hi Pierre,
One of your recent commits (22796f1ad16abb7b1519d11332175d147ae10b82)
adds pathname-utils to "lisp-xyz.scm", however there was already
a definition for this package (starting at line 16030).
As far as I can see it doesn't break anything because the previous
definition is just shadowed b
