Ben Woodcroft skribis:
> On 04/01/16 00:06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Ben Woodcroft skribis:
>>
>>> On 03/01/16 06:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
> On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Ben Woodcroft skribis:
>> [...]
>>
>>> + `(#:phases
Ben Woodcroft writes:
>>> We could even default this to the expected name of the library guessed
>>> from the name of the package when #:import is not given. However, this
>>> would unfortunately break packages that have been written outside of
>>> Guix, so I imagine you don't feel this is a goo
On 04/01/16 00:06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
On 03/01/16 06:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
[...]
+ `(#:phases
+ (modify-phases %standard-phases
+ (replace 'check
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
> On 03/01/16 06:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Ben Woodcroft skribis:
>>
>>> On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
[...]
> + `(#:phases
> + (modify-phases %standard-phases
> + (replace 'check
> +
On 03/01/16 06:54, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
> On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Ben Woodcroft skribis:
>>
>>> On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in
> ruby.scm. Going
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 07:17:17PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > I think we should update the package definitions so that more have
> > tests, and failing that import the library so we know it can at least
> > be loaded, like this:
> >
> > + `(#:phases
> > + (modify-phases %standard-p
On 02/01/16 04:17, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in
ruby.scm. Going through each of these individually seems a lit
Ben Woodcroft skribis:
> On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
>>> It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in
>>> ruby.scm. Going through each of these individually seems a little
>>> tedious, can we do them in b
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 09:18:54PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> I think we should update the package definitions so that more have
> tests, and failing that import the library so we know it can at
> least be loaded, like this:
>
> + `(#:phases
> + (modify-phases %standard-phases
> +
On 01/01/16 19:28, Pjotr Prins wrote:
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in
ruby.scm. Going through each of these individually seems a little
tedious, can we do them in bulk somehow or do they have to be
com
On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:27:21PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> Phew, you almost beat me to the first patch of the year there Pjotr..
Mine is trivial ;)
> It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in
> ruby.scm. Going through each of these individually seems a little
> tedious,
Phew, you almost beat me to the first patch of the year there Pjotr..
It seems there's 30 packages to be updated, out of the 107 in ruby.scm.
Going through each of these individually seems a little tedious, can we
do them in bulk somehow or do they have to be committed individually?
Building a
13 matches
Mail list logo
