Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: wi...@pobox.com, guix-de...@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 16:57:22 +0100 > > > I'm saying that when cross-compiling, it's easy to produce binaries > > that are unusable on Windows because Guile is not run natively during > >

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Cc: wi...@pobox.com, guix-de...@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org >> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:04:52 +0100 >> >> I think Andy was referring to the possibility of cross-compiling >> packages that use Guile to MinGW.

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: wi...@pobox.com, guix-de...@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org > Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2017 15:04:52 +0100 > > I think Andy was referring to the possibility of cross-compiling > packages that use Guile to MinGW. That is already possible thanks to > the work of

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Hi Eli, Eli Zaretskii skribis: >> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) >> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:30:57 +0100 >> Cc: guix-de...@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org >> >> > Open questions would be, what about other targets like macOS or Windows >> > or whatever? There I don't know. I

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Andy Wingo skribis: > Concretly I would propose something like this in a package.scm in the > git repo: > > (use-modules (guildhall)) ; or whatever we call it > (import-guix-packages ((a "a") > (b "b@5.2"))) > > (define foo >

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Andy Wingo writes: > On Thu 16 Mar 2017 20:26, Amirouche Boubekki writes: > >>> So! My proposal for this new "guildhall" would be: >>> >>> 1. a web service >>> >> >> What would be the cli interface associated with that web service? >> Some thing

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Hi Andy, It does look a lot like the channels we propose. Another thing to keep in mind is that it is possible to relocate guix binaries into any prefix so you do not actually need root privileges. It is something I am using for testing packages on HPC without root and I am going to make

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Andy Wingo writes: > On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver writes: > >> If [Guix] starts encouraging a decentralized approach, that would >> result in strong pressure on us to freeze our API, which includes even >> such details as which module each package is exported from.

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

> From: l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 12:30:57 +0100 > Cc: guix-de...@gnu.org, guile-user@gnu.org > > > Open questions would be, what about other targets like macOS or Windows > > or whatever? There I don't know. I suspect that if Guix becomes > > popular enough,

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Hello! Andy Wingo skribis: > Crucially, this "guix pack" is really an SDK for Guile and Fibers. > Fibers is a library. You can now make an SDK for anything!!! I > mean, I know, that's a lot of exclamation marks, but check it: you can > develop locally, say using > >

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

On Thu 16 Mar 2017 23:01, Mark H Weaver writes: > If [Guix] starts encouraging a decentralized approach, that would > result in strong pressure on us to freeze our API, which includes even > such details as which module each package is exported from. This > would drastically

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

On Thu 16 Mar 2017 20:26, Amirouche Boubekki writes: >> So! My proposal for this new "guildhall" would be: >> >> 1. a web service >> > > What would be the cli interface associated with that web service? > Some thing like the following will do: > > $ guildhall

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Mark H Weaver : > We need to keep all Guix package definitions within Guix itself, for > the same reason that Linux (the kernel) developers insist on keeping > all device drivers within a single monolithic tree. I think that's one of the most unfortunate aspects of Linux. Just

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Hello! Mark H Weaver skribis: > Andy Wingo writes: > >> So! My proposal for this new "guildhall" would be: >> >> 1. a web service >> >> 2. on which users registers projects >> >> 3. a project is a name + a git repository with a /package.scm file

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Andy Wingo writes: > So! My proposal for this new "guildhall" would be: > > 1. a web service > > 2. on which users registers projects > > 3. a project is a name + a git repository with a /package.scm file > > 4. the package.scm contains Guix package definitions

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Can we link guildhall authentication to Savannah accounts? On 2017-03-16 11:25 am, Andy Wingo wrote: Hi all! I've always wondered about the right solution for getting Guile users to share code with each other. At one point I thought that we would have a Guile-specific packaging system

Re: guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Héllo wingo! On 2017-03-16 19:25, Andy Wingo wrote: Hi all! [...] But it turns out that we can use the same strategy to distribute reproducible binaries for any package that Guix includes. Notably, if you run: guix pack -S /opt/guile-fibers-1.0.0=/ guile-next guile-fibers

guix is the guildhall that we always wanted!

Hi all! I've always wondered about the right solution for getting Guile users to share code with each other. At one point I thought that we would have a Guile-specific packaging system like CPAN or NPM, but one with GNU stow-like characteristics. We had problems with C extensions though: how do