On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 06:07:07PM +0100, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
> Now that so much time has passed and so many packages have been added
> and updated we could even do 0.15.0.
This should be one of the few pleasures of the release managers,
to decide about version numbers and code names!
Andreas
x pull' then they have to build from the bootstrap binaries
>> to guix before pulling and then compiling HEAD. I tried this myself on
>> Scaleway, which offers aarch64 VMs, and was met by test errors.
>
> I’m all for 0.14.1 (we initially wanted to do that by FOSDEM…).
Now that
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 10:41:34AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> I would like to add the new Shepherd as well, which should be ready
> anytime soon.
It would be important to fix bug
https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=30299
first, and maybe other shepherd related bugs in the
n aarch64 and tries
> > to run 'guix pull' then they have to build from the bootstrap binaries
> > to guix before pulling and then compiling HEAD. I tried this myself on
> > Scaleway, which offers aarch64 VMs, and was met by test errors.
>
> I’m all for 0.14.1 (we initially w
gt; to guix before pulling and then compiling HEAD. I tried this myself on
> Scaleway, which offers aarch64 VMs, and was met by test errors.
I’m all for 0.14.1 (we initially wanted to do that by FOSDEM…).
I would like to add the new Shepherd as well, which should be ready
anytime soo
We now have aarch64 build machines, but there wasn't one when 0.14.0 was
released. This means that if someone installs guix on aarch64 and tries
to run 'guix pull' then they have to build from the bootstrap binaries
to guix before pulling and then compiling HEAD. I tried this myself on
Scaleway,
