guix installation age warning sometimes wrong

About 125 days ago, I updated my root profile's ".config/guix/latest" symlink to point to my primary user's guix package definitions: # ls -l /root/.config/guix/latest lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 Mar 21 15:00 /root/.config/guix/latest -> /home/sankey/.config/guix/latest I did this because I

Re: support for non-list search paths

Quoting Ludovic Courtès (2017-03-06 16:22:52) > Hi, > > Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> skribis: > > > My workaround involves using `guix package --search-paths=exact`, but > > this cost me some time debugging which I'd like to save the next person. > > I

support for non-list search paths

The file "~/.guix-profile/etc/profile" treats all search paths as colon-separated lists. Some variables are not supposed to be lists, but treating them as such could confuse programs which read them. GIT_EXEC_PATH is one that has caused me trouble, so I'll be using it as an example below. The

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Troy Sankey (2017-02-18 12:40:15) > There is one more problem, and it is not a minor problem... > > --- cut here --- > $ du -hs tmp/all-cabal-files > 862Mtmp/all-cabal-files > $ du -hs tmp/all-cabal-files/.git

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-18 04:43:51) > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Forgive me if my understanding of build systems in Guix is flawed, but > > let me explain my idea with more detail: > > > > First, make a

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-17 03:00:04) > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 8:31 PM, Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Quoting Troy Sankey (2017-02-06 16:00:29) > >> Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-06 15:34:47) > >> > I would consider a discrep

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Troy Sankey (2017-02-06 16:00:29) > Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-06 15:34:47) > > I would consider a discrepancy between a cabal file on Hackage and the > > actual cabal file included in a tar archive a bug. It may be helpful > > to report it to the author. &g

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-06 03:13:16) > On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Federico Beffa wrote: > > > (ii) The latest LTS still uses GHC 8.0.1. I'm not sure if this is > > because of some real problem (GHC 8.0.2 introduces some > > incompatibilities) or if it is because

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-06 15:34:47) > I would consider a discrepancy between a cabal file on Hackage and the > actual cabal file included in a tar archive a bug. It may be helpful > to report it to the author. I found this issue on the hackage github:

Re: updating many haskell packages

Quoting Federico Beffa (2017-02-06 03:03:34) > Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I have a WIP branch which contains many haskell package updates and > > additions, and makes haskell-build-system use the latest ghc (8.0.2). > > > > https://gith

updating many haskell packages

I have a WIP branch which contains many haskell package updates and additions, and makes haskell-build-system use the latest ghc (8.0.2). https://github.com/pwnage101/guix/tree/add-gitit It started as a small project to create a Gitit package (hence the name of the branch), but blew up into

[PATCH] gnu: pius: Update to 2.2.3.

: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 18:16:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] gnu: pius: Update to 2.2.3. * gnu/packages/gnupg.scm (pius): Update to 2.2.3. [source]: Switch back to using the tarball release. --- gnu/packages/gnupg.sc

Re: fixing python-gpg package, need help

Quoting Troy Sankey (2017-01-09 09:04:17) > > Since your laptop is actually 32-bit, does python-gpg build without the > > patch? If it does build without the patch, then it means that the > > 64-bit-ness of the build-machine on hydra is leaking into the build > > environme

Re: fixing python-gpg package, need help

Quoting Efraim Flashner (2017-01-09 05:14:29) > On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 04:09:17PM -0500, Troy Sankey wrote: > > I'm trying to fix the python-gpg package. Latest build [0] was a > > failure because gpgme.h claims gpgme was compiled with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS > > = 64, imply

fixing python-gpg package, need help

I'm trying to fix the python-gpg package. Latest build [0] was a failure because gpgme.h claims gpgme was compiled with _FILE_OFFSET_BITS = 64, implying the current build (python-gpg) doesn't define any _FILE_OFFSET_BITS (it should also be set to 64, I think). Relevant build log snippet:

[PATCH] gnu: pius: Update to 2.2.2-0.891687c.

ps://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2016-08/msg01885.html [1] https://github.com/jaymzh/pius/issues/46 From 581ff5477ad7dd0d58550ffcfa68116873a1a1bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 22:53:07 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] gnu: pius: Update to

Re: Colors and progress indicators on buildprocesses

Quoting John Darrington (2016-09-28 10:05:52) > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:57:16AM +, ng0 wrote: > > The problem with colors is that the use of colors in build logs creates > very difficult to read logs if you don't filter them. > > This is true. But the build logs already

update khal

Khal 0.8.3 has been released! Builds don't seem to be deterministic when I use --check. Not sure where to start looking in order to fix that. Troy From 2538d47347ea2ca04eb116e762e3bf4dec575d31 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 13:38:20

update python-urwid, python-urwidtrees

of python-urwid (khal), and it does not seem to break anything. Troy From fdc5364cce561e7a5067e0bec256899847f82a41 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:09:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: alot: Fixup comments. * gnu/packages/mail.scm (alot): Ad

Re: [PATCH] update notmuch and python bindings

Quoting Alex Kost (2016-08-08 04:35:12) > I forgot one thing: since the source will be the same as the one of > 'notmuch' package, I'm going to write it like this: > > ;; Notmuch python bindings are now unavailable on pypi. The > ;; bindings are distributed via the notmuch release

Re: [PATCH] update notmuch and python bindings

Quoting ng0 (2016-08-08 03:05:46) > > - '(#:tests? #f ;; FIXME: 662 tests; 168 fail and 99 are skipped > > - ;; with perl input: 50 fail and 99 are skipped > > + '(#:tests? #f ; FIXME: 694 tests; 170 fail and 100 are skipped > > + ; with perl input: 50

Re: [PATCH] update notmuch and python bindings

1792 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 13:27:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: python2-notmuch: Update to 0.22.1. --- gnu/packages/mail.scm | 33 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --

Re: [PATCH] update notmuch and python bindings

Quoting ng0 (2016-08-07 15:29:34) > > (inputs > > - `(("emacs" ,emacs) > > - ("glib" ,glib) > > + `(("glib" ,glib) > > Why is emacs removed? Please see the commit message :) Of course I could be misunderstanding something, but it does build successfully. I do not normally use

[PATCH] update notmuch and python bindings

own experience upgrading from 0.21 to 0.22.1 was problem-free. Troy From a4523503314814adea61a7fef48ea443f7d14b8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 13:27:18 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] gnu: python2-notmuch: Update to 0.22.1. --- gnu/pa

Re: [PATCH] doc: clarification for hashing git checkouts

. Troy From 6381b62a3774001f630d868fa7e58acc28b0cc4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Sankey <sankey...@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 17:45:55 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] doc: clarification for hashing git checkouts When hashing git checkouts of packages, packagers must first remove the .git direc

Re: [PATCH] doc: clarification for hashing git checkouts

Quoting Pjotr Prins (2016-07-10 20:13:26) > And only now I am understanding a problem ages ago. Would this also be > the reason for git sub-modules not to work? Pjotr, If I'm understanding correctly, you failed to generate the hash of a git repository containing submodules? In that case, you

Re: [PATCH] doc: clarification for hashing git checkouts

Quoting Leo Famulari (2016-07-10 19:16:30) > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 05:54:38PM -0400, Troy Sankey wrote: > > When hashing git checkouts of packages, packagers must first remove the .git > > directory. This commit adds this clarification to the "Invoking guix hash" >

[PATCH] doc: clarification for hashing git checkouts

When hashing git checkouts of packages, packagers must first remove the .git directory. This commit adds this clarification to the "Invoking guix hash" page in the documentation. --- doc/guix.texi | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi index

Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add alot and python-urwidtrees

On 2016-07-01 17:50:50 -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: > Thanks for this patch! Thanks for pointing out all my mistakes! :) > > +(define-public alot > > > + (uri (string-append "https://github.com/pazz/alot/archive/; > > + version ".tar.gz")) > > When

[PATCH] gnu: Add alot and python-urwidtrees

--- gnu/packages/mail.scm | 31 +++ gnu/packages/python.scm | 24 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+) diff --git a/gnu/packages/mail.scm b/gnu/packages/mail.scm index c3baa72..62ff246 100644 --- a/gnu/packages/mail.scm +++