Hi Felix,
> Someone once gave me this service [1] to mount a file-system declared
> with (mount? #f). [2] It's been working ever since.
Thanks! I know custom services can be made that can work on a
case-by-case basis. I was curious about the value of encapsulating that
logic within an
On 2024-04-22 16:40, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>> TL;DR :
>> - patch series in big progress, not done yet because I don't really
>> know where to stop and massive rebuilds.
>
> Please take a look at the python-team branch, which contains changes to
> the build system.
I'll rebase on it, thanks.
On 2024-04-21, 08:35 -0700, Felix Lechner wrote:
> It may be better, however, to finally fix Guile's 'system' and
> 'system*' to work with 'with-output-to-string'. [2]
Hi Felix,
Thanks for getting back to me.
Great point re potentially fixing this further up in the "chain",
i.e. in Guile. I'll
Adam writes:
> As I see, first guix pull running too long for a lot of people.
Note that this is not due to download speeds but often due to
compilation. When updating Guix you are not just fetching new data, but
a new version of Guix itself (which happens to come with a library
encoding
On Wed, Apr 03 2024, Maxim Cournoyer wrote:
> It's been Guix policy to let people choose whether to install or not TLS
> root certificates and which one to their machine. While I applaud the
> idea to have the users make a conscious decision about it, in practice I
> suppose very few of us
>From a computational perspective, downloading tarballs is much simpler than
>fetching from Git.
But Git offers so many advantages, and computing has become so inexpensive,
that it's become very common to use Git instead.
Recent Git implementations have optimized serving of specific Git
Ian Eure writes:
> The change is mentioned in the channel news, but it says nothing about
> needing to remove that part of the config.
You are right; I have added more explicit instructions as commit
e5c0ea22e68cc8d6f99957295bc9198afb8455df.
Users should see it when they guix pull again.
Fabio Natali writes:
> For what it's worth, I put together a micro-patch and sent it over as a
> follow-up to #70451.
Pushed as 67a3a83170c038d2eb084d3f53a7ea7b033aea74.
Thank you!
Regards,
Florian
Hello Guix!
I wonder what is the proper usage of square brackets in change logs.
According to
https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Change-Logs square
brackets are used for conditional changes, the name of the condition is
specified inside '[ ]'. However looking over the commit
