Re: Updates for Go

On 2023-08-22 13:14:05 +, Attila Lendvai wrote: > > each package for those two to work properly. Also, while having pinned > > versions of dependencies upstream seems like the consensus, I'm not sure > > we'd like doing that, be it for the exponential CI work that would be > > required. > >

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/27/23 9:41 AM, wolf wrote: Sure, golang compiles faster than C++ for example, but anecdotal data point: at $DAYJOB we had to start persisting the compiler cache to make CI fast enough. I've seen similar things done at companies. This is perhaps an interesting avenue to pursue later: if

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/25/23 6:29 PM, John Kehayias wrote: I've not been following in detail this discussion, but where do we currently stand? Is the proposed Go 1.21 patch basically ready? As far as I know, yes. I've been using it locally since I submitted the patch, and things seem to be working as

Re: Updates for Go

Hi Katherine, On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 10:12 AM, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > On 8/22/23 8:24 AM, Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the > GNU System distribution. wrote: >> Hi Attila, >> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 6:14 AM Attila Lendvai wrote: >>> >>> currently the go build system in

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/22/23 8:24 AM, Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: Hi Attila, On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 6:14 AM Attila Lendvai wrote: currently the go build system in guix does not reuse build artifacts Can Golang reuse build artifacts? I don't think it's

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/22/23 12:06 PM, david larsson wrote: Im not a fan of Go, but I've wanted to package some Go packages. Ive only managed to write 2 packages for my private channel so far, but they were simple. If there is a guide or so somewhere explaining how to do this, then maybe I could complete and

Re: Updates for Go

On 2023-08-17 16:25, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: [..] Even if you dislike Go, but can work your way through a package, please consider signing up! Hi, Im not a fan of Go, but I've wanted to package some Go packages. Ive only managed to write 2 packages for my private channel so far, but they

Re: Updates for Go

Hi Attila, On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 6:14 AM Attila Lendvai wrote: > > currently the go build system in guix does not reuse build artifacts Can Golang reuse build artifacts? Kind regards Felix

Re: Updates for Go

> each package for those two to work properly. Also, while having pinned > versions of dependencies upstream seems like the consensus, I'm not sure > we'd like doing that, be it for the exponential CI work that would be > required. not arguing either way, FWIW: - rumour has it that golang

Re: Updates for Go

Hi Katherine, Katherine Cox-Buday writes: > Thank you for volunteering! > > I'm not aware of a TODO list anywhere other than the issue tracker > (https://issues.guix.gnu.org/search?query=golang+is%3Aopen). I've spend some time during the last days getting familiar with the go-build-system in

Re: Updates for Go

Hi Felix, Felix Lechner via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." writes: > From my experience of packaging Gocryptfs in Debian and here, perhaps > some reconsideration should be given to the widely unpopular idea of > using more package functions in Guix. Ending in

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/21/23 11:53 AM, Felix Lechner wrote: Hi, On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:11 AM Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: the immediate emphasis should be on making bringing our Go ecosystem onto a supported version of Go From my experience of packaging Gocryptfs in Debian and here, perhaps some

Re: Updates for Go

Summary: these are good things to talk about. I think we should focus on using the current approach to get our Go ecosystem into a supported state before we talk about these things. On 8/19/23 5:31 AM, Attila Lendvai wrote: at one point i tried to compile some large projects written in golang

Re: Updates for Go

Hi, On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 9:11 AM Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > > the immediate emphasis should be on making bringing > our Go ecosystem onto a supported version of Go >From my experience of packaging Gocryptfs in Debian and here, perhaps some reconsideration should be given to the widely

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/17/23 3:54 PM, Wilko Meyer wrote: That being said, I'd actually be willing to put some time and effort into Guixes Go ecosystem; even though I haven't been on Guix for that long and would probably have to read through prior contributions to golang.scm to get the gist on how the

Re: Updates for Go

at one point i tried to compile some large projects written in golang in a reproducible way, and making sure that they use the exact same versions of all their dependencies. in short: there's a philosophical mismatch between how guix and the golang crowd looks at building go apps. guix likes

Re: Updates for Go

On 2023-08-17 at 23:54+02:00, Wilko Meyer wrote: > Is there a list of current TODOs somewhere? Or would one start > by bumping packages to build with a more recent/non-EoL go version > and see if that works out? Most Go packages are quite dated by a few years, so that's probably a good idea. One

Re: Updates for Go

Hi, Katherine Cox-Buday writes: > Even if you dislike Go, but can work your way through a package, > please consider signing up! I started picking up Golang for work related use recently again; have been somewhat regularly writing it between 2015 and 2018-ish, but always favored using

Re: Updates for Go

On 8/16/23 11:25 AM, Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution. wrote: Hi Katherine, On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:59 PM Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: There's also no one on Guix's Go team. I've created a patch to add myself[1] Your courage and initiative are

Re: Updates for Go

Hi Katherine, On Tue, Aug 15, 2023 at 12:59 PM Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > > There's also no one on Guix's Go team. I've created a patch to add > myself[1] Your courage and initiative are inspiring. (Unfortunately, my skills are lousy.) Anybody with an interest in Golang should please speak

Updates for Go

Hey all, Our Go ecosystem is currently in need of a lot of love. * The Go Team There is currently no branch for Go updates. I know Leo had tried to get one setup at one point[0] but ran into issues. I'm unclear if they were ever resolved, but the branch isn't there, and we need one

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

Leo Famulari writes: > On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 06:12:49PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> We’ll have to stay focused in the coming days to fix everything as >> quickly as we can. > > The latest core-updates evaluation is coming together [0], but there are > still a few

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 06:12:49PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > We’ll have to stay focused in the coming days to fix everything as > quickly as we can. The latest core-updates evaluation is coming together [0], but there are still a few notable issues: * Pandas is failing to build:

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 01:35:31PM -0500, Leo Famulari wrote: > Libtiff failed the first build attempt when the upstream FTP server > timed out. It has succeeded since then, but this will have caused a lot > of dependent packages to fail. > > Should I "Restart all dependency failed builds" now?

Re: change to the wrap-program procedure (was: core-updates, let’s go!)

Hi Hartmut, > Am 31.12.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: >> There’s also a change to the wrap-program procedure that does without >> the shell wrappers and instead prepends a short Guile program, which is >> read as a comment in the target language. It’s better to play with this >> in the

change to the wrap-program procedure (was: core-updates, let’s go!)

Am 31.12.2017 um 18:27 schrieb Ricardo Wurmus: > There’s also a change to the wrap-program procedure that does without > the shell wrappers and instead prepends a short Guile program, which is > read as a comment in the target language. It’s better to play with this > in the next core-updates

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 06:12:49PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > I’ve started a new evaluation, let’s see what happens! > > We’ll have to stay focused in the coming days to fix everything as > quickly as we can. > > Thanks, and happy new year where applicable! :-) > > Ludo’.

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

Hello Guix! I’ve started a new evaluation, let’s see what happens! We’ll have to stay focused in the coming days to fix everything as quickly as we can. Thanks, and happy new year where applicable! :-) Ludo’.

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

Marius Bakke writes: > Danny Milosavljevic writes: > >> I'd like to get the patch >> >> [bug#29856] [PATCH core-updates] guix: python-build-system: Modify >> ".py" files in-place. >> >> into this core-updates cycle. What do you all think? > >

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

Danny Milosavljevic writes: > I'd like to get the patch > > [bug#29856] [PATCH core-updates] guix: python-build-system: Modify ".py" > files in-place. > > into this core-updates cycle. What do you all think? We already have a substantial amount of Python changes

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

Ludovic Courtès writes: > Hello Guix! > > ‘core-updates’ is doing OK! > > https://hydra.gnu.org/jobset/gnu/core-updates > > The remaining issues are GCC 4.8 and 4.9 failing to build, which are > nothing serious and left as an exercise to the reader. > > What about starting a new

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 12:14:16 +0100 Danny Milosavljevic wrote: > I'd like to get the patch > > [bug#29856] [PATCH core-updates] guix: python-build-system: Modify ".py" > files in-place. > > into this core-updates cycle. What do you all think? > > If we don't do

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

I'd like to get the patch [bug#29856] [PATCH core-updates] guix: python-build-system: Modify ".py" files in-place. into this core-updates cycle. What do you all think? If we don't do it then a lot of Python programs (the ones who use "console_scripts" in setup.py as they should) will

Re: core-updates, let’s go!

On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 11:27:37AM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello Guix! > > ‘core-updates’ is doing OK! > > https://hydra.gnu.org/jobset/gnu/core-updates > > The remaining issues are GCC 4.8 and 4.9 failing to build, which are > nothing serious and left as an exercise to the reader. >

core-updates, let’s go!

Hello Guix! ‘core-updates’ is doing OK! https://hydra.gnu.org/jobset/gnu/core-updates The remaining issues are GCC 4.8 and 4.9 failing to build, which are nothing serious and left as an exercise to the reader. What about starting a new evaluation of all the packages now so we can merge it