Re: [bug#62264] [PATCH v2 0/3] Add 'guix locate'
--- Original Message --- On Wednesday, June 7th, 2023 at 10:09 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > > Hello! > > Here is the “camera-ready” version of the new ‘guix locate’ command > (formerly ‘guix index’) that Antoine and myself have worked on. > I think it’s ready to go. It would be helpful to provide a link to any documentation that's part of this work, as neither "guix locate" nor "guix index" have been discussed on guix-devel previously. I look forward to learning more about this feature! Ryan
Re: Suggest improve emacs setting in 'The Perfect Setup'
2022-12-31 18:17 jbra...@dismail.de: Possible also mention how to set up page break lines: https://github.com/purcell/page-break-lines By the way, another good alternative to that Emacs package is: https://depp.brause.cc/form-feed/ But I don't think that either of these packages should be mentioned in The Perfect Setup. They don't relate to Guix specifically.
Re: rust-build-system from antioxidant
Op 02-06-2023 om 20:02 schreef Nicolas Graves: A few months ago, Maxime Devos worked on a new rust-build-system to handle a few issues we were experiencing with cargo (see discussions on antioxidant in guix-devel). A month ago, we discussed about the possibility of the integration in core guix, and the required steps. Maxime and I had a different approach. Maxime highlighted the possibility to make a smooth transition but once that would require many gradual changes and deprecation. My approach was that since we'll have to eventually migrate all packages to rust-build-system, and since we can freeze all former rust packages in an archive channel, I would be clearer to make the transition at once. > [...] Actually, I started out with the non-gradual approach, but that was overruled by Ludo', IIRC. Greetings, Maxime. OpenPGP_0x49E3EE22191725EE.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Changes to the branching/commit policy
Hey! The changes in #63459 have strayed now in to touching the commit policy [1]. My intent was to simplify the guidance by grouping it better, but I think the significant change here is that the commit policy now references the entire branching strategy, rather than just talking about sending patches for review. 1: https://guix.gnu.org/manual/devel/en/html_node/Commit-Access.html#Commit-Policy That new branching strategy makes some "should" requirements on sending patches for review and pushing to topic branches for larger changes. It also makes a "must" requirement on opening guix-patches issues to track and manage merging branches. I'd like to merge these changes next week since they've been up for a few weeks, so do comment if you have any thoughts or if you'd like more time to review them. Thanks, Chris signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: 01/03: gnu: sbcl: Update to 2.3.5.
Christopher Baines writes: > guix-comm...@gnu.org writes: > >> glv pushed a commit to branch master >> in repository guix. >> >> commit b019b49c74e51e42230da471f39bff9f642fbc24 >> Author: Guillaume Le Vaillant >> AuthorDate: Fri Jun 2 13:32:55 2023 +0200 >> >> gnu: sbcl: Update to 2.3.5. >> >> * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (sbcl): Update to 2.3.5. >> --- >> gnu/packages/lisp.scm | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Did this change need to go straight to master? Joining this thread with a different issue, it looks like this change has broken sbcl on armhf-linux [1]. 1: https://data.guix.gnu.org/repository/1/branch/master/package/sbcl/output-history?output=out=armhf-linux=none Maybe you tested this locally and knew of this breakage, but it would still be good to send this for review (either as some patches or pushed to a branch) so that it's visible to others what the effect of the change will be. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
