Re: Releasing 0.9.1

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > >> So, on this branch, I’d incorporate: >> >> dbus and dbus/activation >> eudev and eudev-with-blkid >> graphite2 and its replacement >> perl and its replacement >> openssl and its replacement > > Done in

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > So, on this branch, I’d incorporate: > > dbus and dbus/activation > eudev and eudev-with-blkid > graphite2 and its replacement > perl and its replacement > openssl and its replacement Done in ‘security-updates’. I’ll get it built by Hydra if th

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

So! It seems that this time releasing is really hard. :-) I’d like to do a rebuild without any package replacements, in the hope that the release itself has no or few grafts in place, mostly because: • performance is currently degraded in the presence of grafts, in particular the repeated

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Leo Famulari skribis: > When Florian was publishing substitutes from fps.io, there was a problem > with `guix publish` in practice. > > I set my daemon to use '--substitute-urls=http://fps.io, > http://hydra.gnu.org', or something like that (I don't remember the > syntax). If a desired substitute

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Andreas Enge skribis: > I would like to see an updated vigra. Presumably, in maybe a week there > should be a release that builds and that would allow us to build libreoffice. > I tried the most recent git snapshot and it compiles (well, I had problems > in the beginning, and I am not totally sur

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

I would like to see an updated vigra. Presumably, in maybe a week there should be a release that builds and that would allow us to build libreoffice. I tried the most recent git snapshot and it compiles (well, I had problems in the beginning, and I am not totally sure we do not need to disable para

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 06:51:44PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > So, what’s up with this release? > > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > > > • Have a GNOME meta-package, or a ‘%gnome-packages’ variable, or > > something like that. We should provide an example of how to get a > >

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Ludovic Courtès writes: >> • The nscd issue in the installer image: . >> I’ll try to reproduce it in a VM and debug from there. > > Presumably fixed. I could no longer reproduce this on any of my GuixSD machines. All recent reports are from users who install wi

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

So, what’s up with this release? l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > • Have a GNOME meta-package, or a ‘%gnome-packages’ variable, or > something like that. We should provide an example of how to get a > GNOME setup. I think several of you have that already. 宋文武? This is mostl

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Seriously, I think we should be aiming for a release by the end of the > month. Here a few rather low-hanging fruits that I think we should > address: > [...] > • The ‘guile@1.8’ syntax patch. Mathieu? I didn't relook into it yet. I will try to find s

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

On 08/02/16 06:44, Ludovic Courtès wrote: Ricardo Wurmus skribis: Ben Woodcroft writes: [...] >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object instead of a package name to ‘latest-release’. We should do that ideally before this patch goes in, or otherwise soon. Is there any updat

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > Ben Woodcroft writes: [...] >> >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object instead of a >> package name to ‘latest-release’. We should do that ideally before this >> patch goes in, or otherwise soon. >> >> Is there any update for this Ricardo? Do we just

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Ben Woodcroft writes: > On 05/02/16 23:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > [..] >>• Possibly the GitHub updater, which seemed pretty much ready. Ben? > Revisiting your comments on that patch Ludo the only thing that stands > out is: > > >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object inste

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

Hi, On 05/02/16 23:46, Ludovic Courtès wrote: [..] • Possibly the GitHub updater, which seemed pretty much ready. Ben? Revisiting your comments on that patch Ludo the only thing that stands out is: >[Ricardo] proposed recently to pass a package object instead of a package name to ‘latest

Re: Releasing 0.9.1

On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 02:46:24PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I suggest that we release 0.9.1 as soon as we get less than 2 kernel > panic reports per day! Or a week without security update and rebuilding the world. Andreas

Releasing 0.9.1

Hello! I suggest that we release 0.9.1 as soon as we get less than 2 kernel panic reports per day! (Just kidding.) Seriously, I think we should be aiming for a release by the end of the month. Here a few rather low-hanging fruits that I think we should address: • Have a GNOME meta-package, o