Re: how to test service changes

Hi Martin, I think you can use ~./pre-inst-env guix system vm config.scm~ and test the service there. But maybe somebody else has better advices. Thanks, Nicolò Martin Becze writes: > Hi Guix, > > I was in the processes of updating geoclue but I ran into a problem. I > don't know how to

how to test service changes

Hi Guix, I was in the processes of updating geoclue but I ran into a problem. I don't know how to test the updated package on my system. geoclue is installed by (geoclue-service) in my config.scm. How would I go about making `guix system reconfigure ./config.scm` use my updated package? Or

Re: G-Expressions and Scope Preservation

zimoun writes: > the Unison language Thank you for sharing the link! I only read the overview, but I can see why this makes you think of G-Expressions. It's always interesting to read about how content addressability can make some problems easier. > I cannot wait for your presentation at

Re: libmediainfo

On January 21, 2020 9:08:55 PM UTC, ssch...@mailbox.org wrote: >> Efraim Flashner hat am 20. Januar 2020 08:35 >> geschrieben: >> >> typo above, it should be /lib/libmediainfo.so.o >> >> With that change I got 1 test error, related to it trying to download an >> mp4 file from the internet. >

Re: OCaml 4.09

Le 20 janvier 2020 19:43:38 GMT-05:00, Julien Lepiller a écrit : >Ok, I pushed some updates to ocaml packages. I think we can now proceed >with the switch to ocaml 4.09 by default. There are three phases to the >switch, and two more to complete it: > >- add ocaml4.07-findlib >- add

Re: Guix minor version update?

Hi, On +2020-01-21 12:43:26 -0500, Julien Lepiller wrote: > Le 21 janvier 2020 08:32:00 GMT-05:00, zimoun a > écrit : > >Dear, > > > >Currently, the proposed Guix to install is v1.0.1. This very version > >has some "bugs" [1] fixed since then [2]. But it is not convenient > >when using with

Re: libmediainfo

> Efraim Flashner hat am 20. Januar 2020 08:35 > geschrieben: > > typo above, it should be /lib/libmediainfo.so.o > > With that change I got 1 test error, related to it trying to download an > mp4 file from the internet. Thank you very much! Maybe there is another typo, because

Re: Parameterized packages

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:13, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > zimoun writes: > > >> > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > >> > (define (make-me-a-package option1 option2) > >> > (package > >> > …)) > >> > --8<---cut

Rust bootstrapping TODO

Hi, here a list of things we could still do in order to improve the Rust bootstrapping process. (1) For all Mozilla Rusts except the latest one, pass "--disable-docs --disable-compilerdocs" in order to disable building (and especially TESTING) the docs. Testing the docs takes a very long time

Re: Build systems and implicit inputs

Hi Pierre, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 14:07, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > zimoun writes: > > On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> > The solution to your problem in my opinion is simply to expose just the > >> > right amount of options through #:arguments for all build systems. >

Re: Guix minor version update?

Le 21 janvier 2020 08:32:00 GMT-05:00, zimoun a écrit : >Dear, > >Currently, the proposed Guix to install is v1.0.1. This very version >has some "bugs" [1] fixed since then [2]. But it is not convenient >when using with Docker [3]. > >Why not update the minor version to v1.1? > >Then, I propose

Re: Rust packaging coordination

Hi all, Thanks to Efraim, tokei is in master. John

Re: G-Expressions and Scope Preservation

Hi Chris, My comment is not related at all, just for reference and/or curiosity. :-) Yesterday night, I "discovered" the Unison language [1] which seems presenting similar ideas than G-expression. Well, even I am not sure to understand the both. And Nix guys seems floating around [2]. ;-) [1]

Guix minor version update?

Dear, Currently, the proposed Guix to install is v1.0.1. This very version has some "bugs" [1] fixed since then [2]. But it is not convenient when using with Docker [3]. Why not update the minor version to v1.1? Then, I propose to update this minor version: - each time core-updates or staging

Re: Parameterized packages

zimoun writes: >> > --8<---cut here---start->8--- >> > (define (make-me-a-package option1 option2) >> > (package >> > …)) >> > --8<---cut here---end--->8--- >> >> The ellipsis is a bit vague here. What is this

Re: Build systems and implicit inputs

Hi Ludo, On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 11:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > The solution to your problem in my opinion is simply to expose just the > > right amount of options through #:arguments for all build systems. > > Would that be satisfactory to you? > > I think the issue of tweaking the build

Re: Parameterized packages

Hi, Thank you for the explanations. On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 at 19:57, Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > > The solution of 2. and 3. seems to write, as Ludo mentioned: > > > > --8<---cut here---start->8--- > > (define (make-me-a-package option1 option2) > > (package

Build systems and implicit inputs

Hi! Pierre Neidhardt skribis: > But as I understand it, all the "configurable part" of the builder is > expose through the #:arguments field. A simple example of this is > python: the python-build-system has an argument which allows the package > to specify whether we use python-2 or python-3.

Re: Parameterized packages

Hi, ison skribis: > Just a thought, but could this be achieved using Guile's parameterization > feature? > https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Parameters.html I don’t think so: these “parameters” (I like to write “SRFI-39 parameters” to avoid confusion, which refers to

Re: Inverted index to accelerate guix package search

Hello! Arun Isaac skribis: >> What is not clear to me right now in both implementations are. >> >> 1. >> How to update the index. >> Give a look at the "pull" code and the ~/.cache/guix folder. > > We don't "update" the index. At every guix pull we create it > anew. Currently,

Re: TeX Live 2019 wanted

On 17 Jan 09:53 Ricardo Wurmus wrote: > Mikhail Kryshen writes: > > > - font files are missing from texlive-latex-lh (shouldn't it be > > called texlive-lh?). > > Thank you, that’s a good one. Generally, the texlive-latex-* packages > are of the old type that may very well be incomplete.

Re: Maintaining Jami #3

Jan writes: > I didn't really answer your questions earlier, sorry. > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 10:20:51 +0100 > Pierre Neidhardt wrote: > >> Hi Jan, >> >> I tested the Jami package we have in upstream Guix: >> >> - It fails to start on my desktop, it only works on my laptop. > What do you mean

Re: Parameterized packages

ison writes: > Just a thought, but could this be achieved using Guile's parameterization > feature? > https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Parameters.html > > Not sure which method will be best overall, but its something to consider > and might avoid the need to define a bunch of

Re: [bug#39028] [PATCH 5/7] gnu: python-cryptography: Update to 2.8

Hi, > Hello Braun, I have pushed the previous 4 patches into master, thank you! thanks. > This is not a small change for me, as 'guix refresh -l python-cryptography' > says: > Building the following 167 packages would ensure 367 dependent packages are > rebuilt... True, I did not check that,