Hello!
I am sorry for the late reply; I'm a bit busy with academics at the moment,
and I unfortunately did not have the time to open up an issue.
Thank you for reminding me about this, I'll try and make an issue as soon
as time permits!
Best,
Sarthak.
On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:42 AM Sergio Pastor
Hello!
On 8/23/24 11:01, Sarthak Shah wrote:
I will open an issue on the debbugs as soon as I have time to update my
patch!
Did you have time to open the issue?
If anyone knows where I could track the progress, please let me know.
Regards,
Sergio.
Ludovic Courtès writes:
Good afternoon.
I apologise for late reply — I am still catching up with my digital life
backlog.
> Hi,
>
> Marek Paśnikowski skribis:
>
>> In order to prevent the XY problem, here is my goal: Rebuild the entire
>> system with -Os optimization level. It is an experimen
ook...@gnu.org
> on behalf of
> Suhail Singh
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2024 4:37 PM
> *To:* Sarthak Shah
> *Cc:* Suhail Singh ; Marek Paśnikowski <
> ma...@marekpasnikowski.pl>; Guix Devel
> *Subject:* Re: Global modification of #:make-flags
>
> Sarthak Shah
Hello Marek.
Marek Paśnikowski writes:
> Does the Guix System have a facility similar to Gentoo's [make.conf][2],
> where a default optimization set can be declared? A potential problem is
> with packages that are dependencies of services, like %desktop-services.
> I hope those also would inheri
l Singh ; Marek Paśnikowski
; Guix Devel
Subject: Re: Global modification of #:make-flags
Sarthak Shah writes:
> From my understanding, debbugs issues are meant for technical features
> or issues pending implementation, while guix-devel threads are meant
> for discussions surrounding Guix
Hi,
Marek Paśnikowski skribis:
> In order to prevent the XY problem, here is my goal: Rebuild the entire
> system with -Os optimization level. It is an experiment into viability
> of hardware-targeted optimizations.
Instead of trying to override #:make-flags, which is likely fragile as
it depe
Sarthak Shah writes:
> From my understanding, debbugs issues are meant for technical features
> or issues pending implementation, while guix-devel threads are meant
> for discussions surrounding Guix and possible features.
I am no authority on the matter, so please take what I say with a grain
o
Sarthak Shah writes:
> Hey Marek, Yep, this is a patch for the repository. I haven't figured
> out how to programmatically patch it yet either; the original idea was
> to use time-machine, but it was causing some errors that I wasn't able
> to debug. Perhaps it's time I give it another shot.
>
>
Hey Marek,
Yep, this is a patch for the repository. I haven't figured out how to
programmatically patch it yet either; the original idea was to use
time-machine, but it was causing some errors that I wasn't able to debug.
Perhaps it's time I give it another shot.
As for -Os, check out the GCC opti
Sarthak Shah writes:
> Another thing that needs a bit of fixing is that this doesn't work on
> fresh Guix repositories, you need to have built Guix once from a
> repository before applying the patch.
Hold on. Is this a patch to the guix /repository/, not /package/? That
would explain the patch
Hey Suhail,
I was thinking about having a conversation in a guix-devel email thread
itself.
>From my understanding, debbugs issues are meant for technical features or
issues pending implementation, while guix-devel threads are meant for
discussions surrounding Guix and possible features.
This is
Hey Marek,
It looks like I need to update the patch as it's failing to apply to
Makefile.am
In the meantime, you could try to apply the one failed hunk in
Makefile.am.rej yourself, that should fix the problem.
Another thing that needs a bit of fixing is that this doesn't work on fresh
Guix reposito
Sarthak Shah writes:
> Hey Marek,
> You might find my work on Parameterized Packages interesting:
>
> https://blog.lispy.tech/parameterized-packages-the-project-completion-update.html
>
> Unfortunately, it hasn't been merged into the main branch yet, however you
> should be able to make everythi
Sarthak Shah writes:
> I think starting a debbugs issue could be a good idea once everyone's
> onboard with getting this patch merged!
I'm not sure I agree that consensus has to be a pre-requisite for
creating an issue.
> Right now, from what I gather, there are some more important conversation
Hey Suhail,
I think starting a debbugs issue could be a good idea once everyone's
onboard with getting this patch merged!
Right now, from what I gather, there are some more important conversations
to be had, mainly with the Guix maintainers, as merging this patch could
lead to a sharp, unexpected i
Sarthak Shah writes:
> https://blog.lispy.tech/parameterized-packages-the-project-completion-update.html
>
> Unfortunately, it hasn't been merged into the main branch yet, however
> you should be able to make everything use -Os with the patch.
The blog doesn't mention a related debbugs issue. I
Hey Marek,
You might find my work on Parameterized Packages interesting:
https://blog.lispy.tech/parameterized-packages-the-project-completion-update.html
Unfortunately, it hasn't been merged into the main branch yet, however you
should be able to make everything use -Os with the patch.
Regards,
Hello
In order to prevent the XY problem, here is my goal: Rebuild the entire
system with -Os optimization level. It is an experiment into viability
of hardware-targeted optimizations.
The [2.1 Packaging Tutorial][1] of the Cookbook mentions that it is
possible to pass a #:make-flags argument to
19 matches
Mail list logo
