Hi Nicolas, Ludo,
On Tue, 13 May 2025 at 11:38, Nicolas Graves wrote:
> I can resubmit a clean 68315 with this change too if this helps.
>
> In the previous mail response, I made the point that 68315 is probably a
> requirement for the following patch to be actually useful.
>> attached is the r
Ping ;)
Next steps here?
I can resubmit a clean 68315 with this change too if this helps.
In the previous mail response, I made the point that 68315 is probably a
requirement for the following patch to be actually useful.
Cheers,
Nicolas
On 2025-04-26 01:12, Nicolas Graves wrote:
> attache
attached is the reworked patch (only modules / no imported-modules
addition, no standardization efforts, no default).
Do two with-imported-modules build-upon each other? If I wrap a gexp in
with-imported-modules, do that act like if we had with-imported-modules
with the union of modules?
>From 9
On 2025-04-25 10:57, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Nicolas Graves writes:
>
>> Actually the thunk was not necessary because args were already passed to
>> the build-bag procedure, and modules and imported-modules were already
>> used in every bag-build procedures, except for trivial and raw
Hello,
Nicolas Graves writes:
> Actually the thunk was not necessary because args were already passed to
> the build-bag procedure, and modules and imported-modules were already
> used in every bag-build procedures, except for trivial and raw
> build-systems.
>
> Patch should look like the one a
On 2025-04-25 00:23, Nicolas Graves wrote:
> Also, I'll try to split the
> https://lists.sr.ht/~ngraves/devel/%3c20250319173238.7969-1-ngra...@ngraves.fr%3E
> patch series :
>
> 1) some patches are improvements independent of wherever I try to do with
> partial builds. They can already be revie
On 2025-04-24 20:02, Nicolas Graves wrote:
> On 2025-04-24 19:16, ngra...@ngraves.fr wrote:
>
>> On 2025-04-15 19:01, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>
>>> Instead of procedure properties (which are a hack, really), you could
>>> add one or two fields to and be done with that.
>>
>> That is true, althoug
On 2025-04-24 19:16, ngra...@ngraves.fr wrote:
> On 2025-04-15 19:01, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
>> Instead of procedure properties (which are a hack, really), you could
>> add one or two fields to and be done with that.
>
> That is true, although I was worried about breaking the API. I'll give
>
On 2025-04-15 19:01, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
>
> ngra...@gmx.com writes:
>
>> Each build-system sets its own imported-modules and modules, but in the
>> case where we would want to generalize a function which takes a
>> build-system in its arguments, there doesn't seem to be a way to acces
Hello,
ngra...@gmx.com writes:
> Each build-system sets its own imported-modules and modules, but in the
> case where we would want to generalize a function which takes a
> build-system in its arguments, there doesn't seem to be a way to access
> the imported-modules and modules from this build-s
On 2025-04-11 18:01, Simon Tournier wrote:
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> CC: core-team
>
> As more or less discussed IRL, I think it could be nice.
BTW, I did that and my local guix fork now includes them. Those
patches are in the second part of this patch series:
https://lists.sr.ht/~ngraves/devel/%3c2025
Hi Nicolas,
CC: core-team
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 at 10:53, ngra...@gmx.com wrote:
> I would like to make that metadata available at the build-system
> level. This would require setting procedure properties on builder
> functions, in every build-system, like so:
>
> (set-procedure-properties!
> gnu
12 matches
Mail list logo
