Hi Kei,
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
> patch should be better!
I just wanted to push a slightly modified version of
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Efraim Flashner writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
>>> > Kei Kebreau writes:
>>> >
>>> >> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>> >>>
>>> Whoops, last patch was a bit me
Efraim Flashner writes:
> On September 2, 2016 2:51:03 PM GMT+03:00, Ricardo Wurmus
> wrote:
>>
>>Efraim Flashner writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Kei Kebreau writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
On September 2, 2016 2:51:03 PM GMT+03:00, Ricardo Wurmus
wrote:
>
>Efraim Flashner writes:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>>
>>> > Kei Kebreau writes:
>>> >
>>> >> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>>
Efraim Flashner writes:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>> > Kei Kebreau writes:
>> >
>> >> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>> >>
>> >>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>> >>>
>> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one.
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Kei Kebreau wrote:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
> > Kei Kebreau writes:
> >
> >> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> >>
> >>> Kei Kebreau writes:
> >>>
> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
> patch should be better!
>
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Kei Kebreau writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>>
Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
patch should be better!
>>>
>>> I just wanted to push a slightly modified version of this (attached) but
>>
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>
>>> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
>>> patch should be better!
>>
>> I just wanted to push a slightly modified version of this (attached) but
>> I cannot actually build the packag
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Kei Kebreau writes:
>
>> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
>> patch should be better!
>
> I just wanted to push a slightly modified version of this (attached) but
> I cannot actually build the package. The patch to remove unused co
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Whoops, last patch was a bit messy and stacked on the previous one. This
> patch should be better!
I just wanted to push a slightly modified version of this (attached) but
I cannot actually build the package. The patch to remove unused code
does not apply due to different
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Kei Kebreau writes:
>>
>>> Here's the corresponding patch. Maybe you or someone else can double (or
>>> triple?)
>>> check and make sure there are no proprietary files the source after running
>>> "./pre-inst-env guix build -S p7zip."
>>
>> The
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Kei Kebreau writes:
>
>> Here's the corresponding patch. Maybe you or someone else can double (or
>> triple?)
>> check and make sure there are no proprietary files the source after running
>> "./pre-inst-env guix build -S p7zip."
>
> The patch looks good. It’s fine to
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Here's the corresponding patch. Maybe you or someone else can double (or
> triple?)
> check and make sure there are no proprietary files the source after running
> "./pre-inst-env guix build -S p7zip."
The patch looks good. It’s fine to delete the non-free files in a
sni
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Kei Kebreau writes:
>
>> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>
>>> k...@openmailbox.org writes:
>>>
On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Leo Famulari writes:
>
>>> > I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
>>> > build phas
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> k...@openmailbox.org writes:
>>
>>> On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Leo Famulari writes:
>> > I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
>> > build phase. Since “guix build -S p7zip” does
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> k...@openmailbox.org writes:
>
>> On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>>> Leo Famulari writes:
>>>
> > I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
> > build phase. Since “guix build -S p7zip” doesn’t run the build phase
> > u
k...@openmailbox.org writes:
> On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> Leo Famulari writes:
>>
> I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
> build phase. Since “guix build -S p7zip” doesn’t run the build phase
> users would still end up with a so
On 2016-08-09 04:05, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Leo Famulari writes:
> I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
> build phase. Since “guix build -S p7zip” doesn’t run the build phase
> users would still end up with a source archive containing the non-free
> parts. The
Leo Famulari writes:
>> > I see that you took care of removing non-free parts in a patch and a
>> > build phase. Since “guix build -S p7zip” doesn’t run the build phase
>> > users would still end up with a source archive containing the non-free
>> > parts. The best way is thus to remove things
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 01:38:17PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
> On 2016-08-02 02:06, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> > Hi Kei,
> >
> > > This patch should install p7zip correctly on every architecture
> > > supported by Guix. Ideally, this should be tested it on each arch for
> > > the sake of completeness
Kei Kebreau writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
>> Hi Kei,
>>
>>> This patch should install p7zip correctly on every architecture
>>> supported by Guix. Ideally, this should be tested it on each arch for
>>> the sake of completeness and safety. I've got x86_64 covered so far. :-)
>>
>> thank you
On 2016-08-02 02:06, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
Hi Kei,
This patch should install p7zip correctly on every architecture
supported by Guix. Ideally, this should be tested it on each arch for
the sake of completeness and safety. I've got x86_64 covered so far.
:-)
thank you for this patch!
I see t
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
> Hi Kei,
>
>> This patch should install p7zip correctly on every architecture
>> supported by Guix. Ideally, this should be tested it on each arch for
>> the sake of completeness and safety. I've got x86_64 covered so far. :-)
>
> thank you for this patch!
>
> I see that y
Hi Kei,
> This patch should install p7zip correctly on every architecture
> supported by Guix. Ideally, this should be tested it on each arch for
> the sake of completeness and safety. I've got x86_64 covered so far. :-)
thank you for this patch!
I see that you took care of removing non-free pa
24 matches
Mail list logo