Re: ‘core-updates’ merged! 🎉

Ludovic Courtès writes: Hi! > Hello Guix! > > I rebased and applied ‘core-updates’ on top of ‘master’ minutes ago with > commit b8327cb31199fb9f4ebed6c53a59601d41def5a1! 🎉 > > Consider contributing translations of the news entry added in that > commit. > > Let’s congratulate everyone involved in

‘core-updates’ merged! 🎉

Hello Guix! I rebased and applied ‘core-updates’ on top of ‘master’ minutes ago with commit b8327cb31199fb9f4ebed6c53a59601d41def5a1! 🎉 Consider contributing translations of the news entry added in that commit. Let’s congratulate everyone involved in this branch for more than a year (⁈) for the

Re: core-updates merged!

On Fri, 8 May 2020, Marius Bakke wrote: Guix, The mythical 'core-updates' branch was just merged to 'master'! Yay! Thanks Marius for shepherding this through. Best, Jack

core-updates merged!

Guix, The mythical 'core-updates' branch was just merged to 'master'! You will notice newer versions of many "core" packages such as glibc, findutils, make, etc; see 'guix pull --news' for the scoop. The mailing list has a (non-exhaustive) overview of the big changes this round: https://lists

‘core-updates’ merged!

Hello Guix! Ludovic Courtès skribis: >> I think should block the >> merge. Otherwise many headless systems will occasionally fail to boot. >> >> (attended systems too, but at least then you have a good meat-based >> entropy source at hand) > > I think w

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Danny Milosavljevic skribis: > Or this: > > (delete-file-recursively "src/test/run-make/issue-26092") Yes, let’s do that until the underlying issue is fixed upstream, with a link to the upstream report. Can you take care of it? Thanks, Ludo’.

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Or this: (delete-file-recursively "src/test/run-make/issue-26092") pgpf6fw1ThcXf.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Hi Ludo, On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 16:54:53 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > It seems that this bug is not fully resolved. Do you know how we could > skip it in the meantime? Yes, just try the build again. It's a thread synchronization problem. pgp02d52wDw0l.pgp Description: OpenPGP d

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:41:59 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > There are still failures out there! > > https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/110331?full=1#tabs-still-fail > > The above list is slightly outdated so I’m restarting an evaluation on > hydra.gnu.org. You can also compare it to ma

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Hello Danny, Danny Milosavljevic skribis: > On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 14:52:42 +0100 > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > >> -- >> LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/tmp/guix-build-rust-1.22.1.drv-0/rustc-1.22.1-src/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/run-make/issue-26092.s

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Hi Ludo, On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 14:52:42 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > -- > LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/tmp/guix-build-rust-1.22.1.drv-0/rustc-1.22.1-src/build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/test/run-make/issue-26092.stage2-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu:/tmp/guix-b

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

It.s not a reproducible failure, I built it from today's core-updates on the second try. Le 23 novembre 2018 14:52:42 GMT+01:00, l...@gnu.org a écrit : >l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > >> There are still failures out there! >> >> https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/110331?full=1#tabs-still-fai

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > There are still failures out there! > > https://hydra.gnu.org/eval/110331?full=1#tabs-still-fail > > The above list is slightly outdated so I’m restarting an evaluation on > hydra.gnu.org. > > A prominent issue is LibreOffice: > > https://lists.gnu.org

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

On Thu, 22 Nov 2018 10:41:59 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > I’m running GuixSD from ‘core-updates’ and everything is working fine. > :-) (I’m using Xorg, NM, etc., but not GNOME.) > > Please check if it works for you! We need your help! I did a guix reconfigure from core-update

Re: Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Hi there! l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) skribis: > What remains to be done is mostly (1) ensuring that there’s no > significant regression in terms of build failures compared to ‘master’, > and (2) making sure GuixSD boots and works fine. > > For #1, a simple test is to try and upgrade your prof

Getting ‘core-updates’ merged

Hi! Björn Höfling skribis: > On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 22:20:27 +0100 > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: >> Ricardo Wurmus skribis: [...] >> > I would prefer to have core-updates in the next release. This has >> > been delayed for much too long. This would also avoid the bad look >> > for a

Re: core-updates: merged

Hello Guix! Ricardo Wurmus skribis: > core-updates has been merged. > > Thanks to everyone who helped in making this happen! Woohoo, indeed! For the record, some of the goodies there: • glibc 2.26+ (almost 2.27!), coreutils 8.28, guile 2.2.3, util-linux 2.31, etc. • Several packages

core-updates: merged

Hi Guix, core-updates has been merged. Thanks to everyone who helped in making this happen! -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net

Re: core-updates merged!

Howdy! Marius Bakke skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Leo Famulari skribis: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this br

core-updates merged!

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Leo Famulari skribis: > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 08:34:21PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>> 'core-updates' has finished building on x86_64 on i686, and the grafting >>> failures should now be fixed. Are we ready to merge this branch? :-) >> >> I think it's ready. Ther

‘core-updates’ merged!

Hello Guix! With the last blocker out of the way, I’ve merged the branch! The (not so new) news: • Updates: glibc 2.25, coreutils 8.26, grep 3.0, guile 2.0.14, sed 4.4, tzdata 2017a, etc. • Packages are built with GCC 5 (was 4.9). • Aarch64 is supported! • Reproducibility fixes: n

Re: core-updates merged!

Hello Leo On 08/10/16 22:49, Leo Famulari wrote: > Since this required me to re-sign these commits, will somebody please > review the differences between WIP-core-updates and core-updates-next, > to make sure I've done the right thing? > > When I get the "okay", I will rename the branch to core-u

Re: core-updates merged!

On Sat, Aug 06, 2016 at 10:42:22AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > It was also suggested to cherry-pick the 11 commits from > core-updates-next onto master — essentially rebasing them. I can try > that if everyone is okay with me re-signing those commits. As discussed on #guix [0], I've pushed the re

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:28:59PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:32:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> As discussed on IRC, SNAFU! For reasons yet to be elucidated, the > >> glibc@2.23 package no longer honors /run/current-system/loca

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:04:46AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:28:59PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > Leo Famulari skribis: > > Otherwise LGTM; could you push it to core-updates-next? > > I merged master into core-updates-next and made the change in a > subsequent c

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 11:27:28PM +0200, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:01:29PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > > Do you mean `git checkout core-updates-next && git merge master`? That's > > what I've done. > > Another option would be the following: > git checkout master > git chec

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:01:29PM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > Do you mean `git checkout core-updates-next && git merge master`? That's > what I've done. Another option would be the following: git checkout master git checkout -b core-updates git cherry-pick "commit 1 from core-updates-next" git c

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 10:01:48PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think core-updates-next is just a dozen commits or so, right? > I think we should remerge core-updates-next on top of master, making it > the new core-updates. Do you mean `git checkout core-updates-next && git merge master`? Th

Re: core-updates merged!

Leo Famulari skribis: >> > I think we are hitting something like the problem I warned about here: >> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-07/msg01220.html >> >> Yes, that’s annoying, but it’s a one-time transitional cost. > > Just to clarify, I would be re-signing (with my own key

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:56:05PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:42:34PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> I think you should start from the pre-merge ‘core-updates-next’, sign > >> commits that are unsigned (I thought Manolis signed them

Re: core-updates merged!

Leo Famulari skribis: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:42:34PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> I think you should start from the pre-merge ‘core-updates-next’, sign >> commits that are unsigned (I thought Manolis signed them all on the last >> rebase?), then merge, and finally push. > > Unfortunatel

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 06:42:34PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I think you should start from the pre-merge ‘core-updates-next’, sign > commits that are unsigned (I thought Manolis signed them all on the last > rebase?), then merge, and finally push. Unfortunately, signing old commits causes su

Re: core-updates merged!

Leo Famulari skribis: > I merged master into core-updates-next and made the change in a > subsequent commit. > > Unfortunately, I can't push the branch to Savannah because it contains > the following unsigned commits (one of them is mine, oops!): > > f21403e2b6f5a9491937a0cc9f31fc113998ce5e > 9bc

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:28:59PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Leo Famulari skribis: > Otherwise LGTM; could you push it to core-updates-next? I merged master into core-updates-next and made the change in a subsequent commit. Unfortunately, I can't push the branch to Savannah because it cont

Re: core-updates merged!

Leo Famulari skribis: > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:32:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> As discussed on IRC, SNAFU! For reasons yet to be elucidated, the >> glibc@2.23 package no longer honors /run/current-system/locale. > > I believe that this commit in glibc@2.23 is the culprit: > > http:/

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 07:32:23PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > As discussed on IRC, SNAFU! For reasons yet to be elucidated, the > glibc@2.23 package no longer honors /run/current-system/locale. I believe that this commit in glibc@2.23 is the culprit: http://repo.or.cz/glibc.git/commit/90fe6

Re: core-updates merged!

Hello! ng0 skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: [...] >> On GuixSD, to ease transition to libc 2.23, you’ll want to install libc >> 2.22 locale data globally (info "(guix) Locales"): >> >> --8<---cut here---start->8--- >> (use-modules (gnu system locale)) >>

Re: core-updates merged!

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello! > > Andreas Enge skribis: > >> one more thing that would be nice to have is gtk-doc: >>http://hydra.gnu.org:3000/build/1345571 >> I already tried to upgrade to 1.25, but that did not change the error. >> And maybe node for those who are interested in it: >>

core-updates merged!

Hello! Andreas Enge skribis: > one more thing that would be nice to have is gtk-doc: >http://hydra.gnu.org:3000/build/1345571 > I already tried to upgrade to 1.25, but that did not change the error. > And maybe node for those who are interested in it: >http://hydra.gnu.org:3000/build/132

core-updates merged again!

Hi! ‘core-updates’ is merged! It brings a libc that supports GUIX_LOCPATH, such that you can run: export GUIX_LOCPATH=$HOME/.guix-profile/lib/locale and be confident that things wrong break badly as before. See the “Locales” node in the manual for details. Ludo’.

‘core-updates’ merged!

Hi! At last ‘core-updates’ is merged! This brings: • Security fixes in icu4c (CVE-2014-6585 and CVE-2015-1270.) • libc 2.22–make sure to read before you upgrade! • New ‘install-file’ procedure in (guix build ut

core-updates merged

FYI, I just merged core-updates into master. Mark

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Andreas Enge wrote: > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:38:26PM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote: >> Guile-ncurses was fixed by adding a new phase to generate the >> "en_US.UTF-8" locale during the generation of the package > > This is interesting information! If I understand

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 07:46:48PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:38:26PM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote: > Guile-ncurses was fixed by adding a new phase to generate the > "en_US.UTF-8" locale during the generation of the package This is interesting inf

Re: core-updates merged!

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 05:38:26PM +0100, Federico Beffa wrote: > Guile-ncurses was fixed by adding a new phase to generate the > "en_US.UTF-8" locale during the generation of the package This is interesting information! If I understand things correctly, I think a solution would be to have tons of

core-updates merged!

l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > • The ‘glibc’ package no longer has a “locale” output, making it > faster to build, and much smaller (the “locale” output was always > pulled, and it took 110 MiB.) I notice that this breaks some packages like guile-ncurses and the (all?) package

core-updates merged!

I’ve just merged core-updates in ‘master’, yay! As a reminder, some of the cool things for packagers: • ‘search-path-specification’ can now specify files (instead of plain directories) or even file pattern (for example, ‘catalog.xml’ for libxml2, or maybe ‘\\.cmake$’ for CMake) This sh

core-updates merged

The ‘core-updates’ branch has finally been merged. It upgrades libc to 2.20, which fixes two security issues found in 2.19, and fixes a bug in GCC 4.8.3. Now that hydra.gnu.org is in better shape, I hope it will be easier to deploy such fixes in the future. However, we must also be diligent in n

Re: core-updates merged!

"Thompson, David" skribis: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> "Thompson, David" skribis: >> >>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: I've just merged core-updates in master, and Hydra has already built most of it. So that brings glibc 2

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > "Thompson, David" skribis: > >> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> I've just merged core-updates in master, and Hydra has already built >>> most of it. So that brings glibc 2.19, grep 2.18, libgc 7.4, guile >>>

Re: core-updates merged!

"Thompson, David" skribis: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> I've just merged core-updates in master, and Hydra has already built >> most of it. So that brings glibc 2.19, grep 2.18, libgc 7.4, guile >> 2.0.11, bash 6.3, the ability to use directories as package sour

Re: core-updates merged!

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > I've just merged core-updates in master, and Hydra has already built > most of it. So that brings glibc 2.19, grep 2.18, libgc 7.4, guile > 2.0.11, bash 6.3, the ability to use directories as package sources > (instead of tarballs), and a

core-updates merged!

I’ve just merged core-updates in master, and Hydra has already built most of it. So that brings glibc 2.19, grep 2.18, libgc 7.4, guile 2.0.11, bash 6.3, the ability to use directories as package sources (instead of tarballs), and a bunch of other updates and improvements. It’s been more than 3 m