any another_ stuff.
I suggest changing the first line into describing the source file,
which goes in hand with
> This file is part of GNU Guix.
Is there any reason against this that I'm not aware of?
Best regards,
McSinyx
any another_ stuff.
I suggest changing the first line into describing the source file,
which goes in hand with
> This file is part of GNU Guix.
Is there any reason against this that I'm not aware of?
Best regards,
McSinyx
On Tue Aug 2, 2022 at 11:09 AM +0200, Maxime Devos wrote:
> On 02-08-2022 07:21, mcsi...@disroot.org wrote:
> > On Mon Aug 1, 2022 at 10:43 PM +0200, Mája Tomášek wrote:
> > > More realistic (imo) is that zig should be encouraged
> > > to build dynamically linked packages, not static ones,
> > >
On Mon Aug 1, 2022 at 10:43 PM +0200, Mája Tomášek wrote:
> More realistic (imo) is that zig should be encouraged to build
> dynamically linked packages, not static ones, and allow the ability
> (with their future package manager) for the distribution to distribute
> it's libraries C-style.
,
or a file containing all the mappings.
3. Wrap the zig command and feed it declared dependency information
while waiting for standardization.
I would love to hear what Guix maintainers' thought on this issue.
All the bests,
McSinyx
