Hi,
On Monday, June 10th, 2024 at 2:26 AM, Andreas Enge wrote:
>
>
> Am Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:19:14PM -0400 schrieb Leo Famulari:
>
> > You're right, it was ZFS itself failing to build.
> > *** ZFS Version: zfs-2.2.3-1
> > *** Compatible Kernels: 3.10 - 6.7
> > Should we change something ab
Am Sun, Jun 09, 2024 at 09:19:14PM -0400 schrieb Leo Famulari:
> You're right, it was ZFS itself failing to build.
> *** ZFS Version: zfs-2.2.3-1
> *** Compatible Kernels: 3.10 - 6.7
> Should we change something about zfs-auto-snapshot? Or is the status quo
> okay?
Somebody has suggest
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:00:59PM +, Kaelyn wrote:
> As a ZFS user, I'd like to offer a bit of clarification: zfs-auto-snapshot
> doesn't depend on any specific kernel versions, but zfs itself does. For
> example, zfs 2.2.3 supports up to kernel 6.7, and zfs 2.2.4 supports up to
> kernel 6.
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 09:00:59PM +, Kaelyn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wednesday, June 5th, 2024 at 11:27 AM, Leo Famulari
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that it broke ‘x86-energy-perf-policy’ and ‘zfs-auto-snapshot’:
Hi,
On Wednesday, June 5th, 2024 at 11:27 AM, Leo Famulari
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> > It seems that it broke ‘x86-energy-perf-policy’ and ‘zfs-auto-snapshot’:
> >
> > https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/1374635?status=newly-failed
>
>
> Ah
On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 08:41:47AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> It seems that it broke ‘x86-energy-perf-policy’ and ‘zfs-auto-snapshot’:
>
> https://ci.guix.gnu.org/eval/1374635?status=newly-failed
Aha, a new feature in the CI web interface! Wonderful!
The failure of 'x86-energy-perf-policy
Hi Leo,
guix-comm...@gnu.org skribis:
> commit 5d3edff1a604414a3c42b89fcbc007e9d573993d
> Author: Leo Famulari
> AuthorDate: Sun Jun 2 16:48:44 2024 -0400
>
> gnu: linux-libre: Update to 6.9.
>
> * gnu/packages/linux.scm (linux-libre-version, linux-libre-gnu-revision,
> linux-li
