Ran into this issue last week. If you:
- Configure some offload build machines in your operating-system
configuration.
- Reconfigure your system.
- Remove all offload build machines.
- Reconfigure your system again.
...then various guix operations will still try to connect to
offload machines
Hi folks,
Last year, I spent several months getting the LibreWolf web
browser packaged, reviewed, and contributed to Guix. I’m happy to
have done so, and glad that it’s proved useful to others. One of
the concerns raised as I was going through that process was
responsibility for ongoing mai
Hello Ian.
I cannot help you since I don't have commit access. But I want to thank
you for your hard work, I'm currently using your package.
I can only echo your frustration since I also have some patches ready to
be merged that seem to be forgotten. As it has been discussed in the
past, Guix is
Hi Sergio,
Sergio Pastor Pérez writes:
Hello Ian.
I cannot help you since I don't have commit access. But I want
to thank
you for your hard work, I'm currently using your package.
Thank you for the kind words, they truly mean a lot to me.
Whatever the state of Guix proper, you can alway
The latest patch series has been sent (bug #71832). It fixes 14
CVEs, in addition to the 16 fixed in v5. I’ve backed out various
improvements and bugfixes I wanted to include, and this does
nothing other than the bare minimum to update the package.
If anyone would like to step up and review
Hi folks,
I’d like to provide substitutes for packages in my personal
channel. The ideal setup for this would be for a machine on my
internal net to perform the builds, then upload the results to
another system on the open internet. That could be a machine
running a web server pointed at a
Ian Eure writes:
> The initial patch to update the version to 127.x was submitted on June
> 29th; updated to 128.x on July 17th; and I’ll be sending the patch
> updating it to 129.x later today, after I’ve finished building and
> testing it.
Thank you for your continued commitment to this despit
I wonder how scalable this approach is, if many "package maintainers"
each have their own channel for the packages they are maintaining, and
made available this way. I would guess to use this approach the Guix
users have to do "guix package -u --allow-collision"
> Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:43:11
It's not, IMO, because while it's very easy to set up a channel, it's very
difficult to publish substitutes for it.
I don't think collisions are any more likely, but perhaps you know of cases I
haven't encountered.
The larger risk is divergence of package definitions, so version X of a package
Suhail Singh writes:
Ian Eure writes:
The initial patch to update the version to 127.x was submitted
on June
29th; updated to 128.x on July 17th; and I’ll be sending the
patch
updating it to 129.x later today, after I’ve finished building
and
testing it.
Thank you for your continued c
10 matches
Mail list logo
