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 commentary
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 imme
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 documentation
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, h
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 installation based on reported
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 guix-daemon
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
cas
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 guix
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 of '~root'
10 matches
Mail list logo
