Re: Release!

Hi David, >> >> • Merge the potluck! > >> About that… We now have a JSON importer, so maybe it’s worth using the >> even simpler JSON package format instead of the simplified S-expression >> format that Andy proposed. What do you think? Should we discuss this >>

Re: [PATCH] DRAFT: build: Compile scheme modules in batches (was Re: Release!)

On Sat, Oct 07, 2017 at 12:06:51AM -0400, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > > > Hi Ludo, > > > >>> Here are some important items I can think of: > > […] > >>> • Guile 2.2 compiler terrible issue: > >>> > >>>

Re: Scope of support for Guix on other distros

Am 07.10.2017 um 12:11 schrieb ng0: > If it helps, this is how cURL/gnURL creates rpms (or at least cURL): > […] > rpm -ba --clean --rmsource $$RPM_TOPDIR/SPECS/$(RPMDIST).spec ; \ I'm afraid this information does not help much, since they "simply" run the rpm build command and process the

Re: Release!

Hello Hartmut, > > so why would we 'abandon' s-exp, what would we win here? > It might be interesting to *create* these files using tools written in > other programming languages. And modules for creating *JSON* are > available for most programming languages. But that would be another tool, an

Re: Scope of support for Guix on other distros

Ricardo Wurmus transcribed 0.5K bytes: > > Christopher Allan Webber writes: > > > Since these don't provide Guix in the main repo (and Debian won't > > because we violate the FHS with /gnu/) we could probably auto-generate > > the .deb or .rpm from some gexp? > > I was thinking about adding sup

Re: Release!

Am 07.10.2017 um 01:31 schrieb David Pirotte: > so why would we 'abandon' s-exp, what would we win here? It might be interesting to *create* these files using tools written in other programming languages. And modules for creating *JSON* are available for most programming languages. (OTOH TOML[]1]