Hi,
"pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)" skribis:
> Otherwise LGTM. Could you send another diff? Would a commit message
> like this be okay:
>
> doc: Simplify installation instructions.
>
> * doc/guix.texi (Installation): Direct readers towards the installation
> script. Remove superfluous
Hello Matt and thank you for your precise wording. You have made clear
the differences:
Matt writes:
> There are several actions which we have deferred and other topics
> which still need to be addressed, such as those raised by Vagrant and
> Suhail. My hope is to 1) resolve and merge this
There are several actions which we have deferred and other topics
which still need to be addressed, such as those raised by Vagrant and
Suhail. My hope is to 1) resolve and merge this immediate patch, as
we appear to be converging on a consensus, 2) discuss how we could
better handle
On 2024-03-11, John Kehayias wrote:
> On Sunday, March 10th, 2024 at 9:58 PM, Vagrant Cascadian
> wrote:
>> On 2024-03-10, Suhail Singh wrote:
>>
>> > Vagrant Cascadian vagr...@debian.org writes:
>> >
>> > > but "guix pull" does not update the running guix-daemon;
>> >
>> > Just to be clear,
Hi Matt. I would almost want to push your changes, but we still
disagree on some wordings.
Also,
Matt writes:
> I realigned the subject. It was previously changed to "doc: Removing
> much of Binary Installation" which is misleading. The topic is how to
> clarify
Hi vagrant,
On Sunday, March 10th, 2024 at 9:58 PM, Vagrant Cascadian
wrote:
>
>
> On 2024-03-10, Suhail Singh wrote:
>
> > Vagrant Cascadian vagr...@debian.org writes:
> >
> > > but "guix pull" does not update the running guix-daemon;
> >
> > Just to be clear, however, if one were to do
On 2024-03-10, Suhail Singh wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian writes:
>> but "guix pull" does not update the running guix-daemon;
>
> Just to be clear, however, if one were to do =sudo -i guix pull=
> instead, followed by =systemctl restart guix-daemon.service= it /would/
> update the running
Vagrant Cascadian writes:
> but "guix pull" does not update the running guix-daemon;
Just to be clear, however, if one were to do =sudo -i guix pull=
instead, followed by =systemctl restart guix-daemon.service= it /would/
update the running guix-daemon on Debian, correct? Or is that not the
On 2024-03-10, m...@excalamus.com wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:29:23 +0100 Vagrant Cascadian wrote ---
>> As the one who packaged and maintains guix in Debian...
>
> Thank you for doing this work!
>
>> The guix-daemon should continue to work from the packaged version, although
>> as
I realigned the subject. It was previously changed to "doc: Removing much of
Binary Installation" which is misleading. The topic is how to clarify
installation based on reported confusion, not about removing text. The
reported confusion was on the use of '~root'. Explicit mention
Hello Matt and all. As a more proper review, I first tried
guix-install.sh on a Debian GNU/Hurd VM. It fails, telling me:
[1709825168.049]: [ INFO ] init system is: sysv-init
[1709825168.059]: [ FAIL ] Unsupported CPU type: i686-AT386
The script guix-install.sh cannot be used on any GNU/Hurd
On 2024-03-06, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> I don’t feel qualified to judge, but is this the preference? Arch wiki
> advises against the Arch AUR package: “Therefore, after updating Guix
> once, the AUR advantage really turns into a disadvantage, as there will
> be many unnecessary files
Suhail Singh writes:
> FWIW, as an openSUSE Tumbleweed user, I believe Tumbleweed users who
> don't care if there is an easy way to uninstall Guix would be better
> served by using =guix-install.sh= as opposed to =zypper=.
Btw, for completeness, on Tumbleweed, the user needs to take some
Matt writes:
> I wonder if we should have similar concerns about the Debian and
> openSUSE packages?
FWIW, as an openSUSE Tumbleweed user, I believe Tumbleweed users who
don't care if there is an easy way to uninstall Guix would be better
served by using =guix-install.sh= as opposed to
On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:15:05 +0100 pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote ---
> Thank you Matt for the suggested diff.
Thank you for taking the time to review it!
> > - Places directions for 'guix-install.sh' after directions to use
> > distribution-specific package managers, giving
Thank you Matt for the suggested diff.
Yes, I agree some simplification as you suggested would be beneficial,
so that the description of Binary Installation looks as simple as it
really is. (In particular, I have witnessed people, to whom I had
suggested Guix, fail at trying Guix because they
16 matches
Mail list logo
