Hello,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
>> Unfortunately, the current daemon protocol makes it hard to get such
>> notifications, unless you parse its output (the “@ build-succeeded”
>> lines) like I did in ‘wip-ui’.
>>
>> Perhaps we’ll have to do this parsing anyway, or just change the
>> protocol alt
Hi Ludo,
> Unfortunately, the current daemon protocol makes it hard to get such
> notifications, unless you parse its output (the “@ build-succeeded”
> lines) like I did in ‘wip-ui’.
>
> Perhaps we’ll have to do this parsing anyway, or just change the
> protocol altogether and have a “channel” me
Hi,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> A cuirass question :
>
> In src/cuirass/base.scm, you wrote the following comment :
>
> ;; Register the results in the database.
> ;; XXX: The 'build-derivations' call is blocking so we end updating the
> ;; database potentially long after things have been b
Hi Ludo,
A cuirass question :
In src/cuirass/base.scm, you wrote the following comment :
--8<---cut here---start->8---
;; Register the results in the database.
;; XXX: The 'build-derivations' call is blocking so we end updating the
;; database potential
Hi Ludo,
> It’s a requirement because the evaluation process has side effects on
> the Guile that runs it; for instance, it loads tons of modules in it.
Ok thanks for the explanation.
I just sent a patch to add minimal error checking on "evaluate" errors.
Mathieu
Hi Mathieu,
Mathieu Othacehe skribis:
> Now that Cuirass uses (guix git), I'm trying to robustify specification
> evaluation. Currently Cuirass calls a binary called "evaluate" to get a
> job list from a specification.
>
> I don't like the idea of this extra "evaluate" script because :
>
> * We
Hi,
Now that Cuirass uses (guix git), I'm trying to robustify specification
evaluation. Currently Cuirass calls a binary called "evaluate" to get a
job list from a specification.
I don't like the idea of this extra "evaluate" script because :
* We have to give evaluate almost all arguments give
