Re: Discussion: How to package rust crates now and in future?

Hi Hartmut, We are using Rust from Guix and just a few comments/thoughts: On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:08:24PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote: >Hi, > >I suggest to discuss this with a broader community. > >TIL: Shall rust packages be packaged with #:skip-build #t? Shall tests >be run

Re: [outreachy] Walk through the Git history (guix git {authenticate,log})

Hi! On 18/12/2020 12:34, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hi Magali, > > Magali skribis: > >> scheme@(guix-user)> (let* ((repo (repository-open cache)) >> (latest-commit >>   (commit-lookup repo (reference-target (repository-head repo) >>     (let loop ((commit latest-commit) >>

Re: Help, and get help reviewing patches this Friday (18th)

Hi, On Fri, 18 Dec 2020 at 17:56, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Friday’s not over, so you can help! For example: [...] > • If you’re interested in someone else’s patch, ping people and > provide feedback to help pull it off. Let try to close the oldest patch bug#20255. ;-)

Re: Discussion: How to package rust crates now and in future?

Hey Hartmut, I’m not sure which way I fall here. I think probably keepijg ci on for most crates makes sense if we can work instead towards real shared libraries. In any case, I would like to propose a working group for rust. Perhaps we can meet monthly in jitsi or elsewhere.

Discussion: How to package rust crates now and in future?

Hi, I suggest to discuss this with a broader community. *TIL: Shall rust packages be packaged with #:skip-build #t? Shall tests be run for all crates?* *My vote: skip-build #t, no tests* Background: I just submitted some patches for some crates, setting #:skip-build for those I touched or ad

Re: Word order in Guix l10n

Hi, > This looks like a real issue. I’m surprised this isn’t already > addressed though: after all, ‘printf’ format strings have the same > problem, right? How does everyone else deal with that? For C's printf format strings, gettext supports special syntax to specify argument order. See https

Re: Help, and get help reviewing patches this Friday (18th)

Hi! Christopher Baines skribis: > I mentioned in [1] that some "Scheduled and regular collaboration on IRC > to review patches" might help both get some patches reviewed, but help > get more people involved in reviewing patches, even if they haven't done > so before. > > 1: https://lists.gnu.org

Re: [outreachy] Walk through the Git history (guix git {authenticate,log})

Hi Magali, Magali skribis: > scheme@(guix-user)> (let* ((repo (repository-open cache)) > (latest-commit >   (commit-lookup repo (reference-target (repository-head repo) >     (let loop ((commit latest-commit) >    (res (list latest-commit))) >   (match (commi

Re: When substitute download + decompression is CPU-bound

Ludovic Courtès writes: > My laptop has 4 cores, so at best I’d get a 4x speedup, compared to the > 10x speedup with zstd that also comes with much lower resource usage, > etc. Of course, it's a trade off between high compression and high speed :) Since there is no universal best option, I thin

Re: Finding versions of packages

Hi, zimoun skribis: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 12:16, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > >> However, doing such composition on a per-package basis and as the >> default way of composing packages is inefficient and, more importantly, >> the resulting compositions may not work. A package written for Python

Re: Word order in Guix l10n

Hi! Julien Lepiller skribis: > Even when translating to French, I sometimes feel the need to change > word order, but I end up finding a slightly unnatural way to preserve > the order of arguments. I don't have an example at hand though. > > I don't know enough about guile to know how best to im

Re: When substitute download + decompression is CPU-bound

Hi Pierre, Pierre Neidhardt skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Well, ‘guix publish’ would first need to create multi-member archives, >> right? > > Correct, but it's trivial once the bindings have been implemented. OK. >> Also, lzlib (which is what we use) does not implement parallel >>

Re: New “ungrafting” branch

Hello, Am Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 04:00:36PM -0500 schrieb Leo Famulari: > I agree, it's not a violation of the functional packaging model in a > strict sense. if I understand correctly, it remains confusing in a non-strict sense: grafting is functional, but it is not the same function. Precisely, t