Simon Tournier writes:
> (I let aside the inferior part that you do not need, IMHO.)
I hope you are right. I will keep thinking about it and will try to
revisit some of my assumptions.
> The computational environment you create with Conda is totally
> inconsistent in regard to the Python
Hi,
There is no free lunch. ;-)
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 04:23, Kyle Andrews wrote:
> Honestly, I couldn't get my poor ancient laptop to
> even finish compiling the inferior - much less try using that inferior
> with your package-with-explicit-python. I'm just wishing that this
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 22:10, Simon Tournier wrote:
> It is about the Guile module system and sometime I am also puzzled why
> the @@ is not working as expected.
Probably because, quoting Tobias [1]:
could this be due to declarative modules? The definition's not
used
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 20:26, Kyle Andrews wrote:
> ```
> repl> (define pwep (@@ (guix build-system python)
> package-with-explicit-python))
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> error: package-with-explicit-python: unbound variable
> ```
[...]
> There seems to be
Kyle Andrews writes:
> Kyle Andrews writes:
>
>> There seems to be some secret Guile incantation I am overlooking. Could
>> you give me a hint of what this could be?
>
> Tobias pointed out to me that the Guile developers could be to blame
> here. They appear a bit too preoccupied with
Kyle Andrews writes:
> There seems to be some secret Guile incantation I am overlooking. Could
> you give me a hint of what this could be?
Tobias pointed out to me that the Guile developers could be to blame
here. They appear a bit too preoccupied with prematurely optimizing the
speed of code
Simon Tournier writes:
>
> You might be interested by the unexported procedure from (guix
> build-system python)
Thanks, Simon. Wojtek already suggested this procedure to me and I have
been trying to understand it. Unfortunately, I am stuck earlier than I
originally thought. I can't figure
Hi !
I am not an expert, and your question definitively is in somewhat new
territory to me, if a real expert comes by, listen to them instead. From
what I gather, transitive inputs are only directs inputs and then
propagated inputs (from the docstring of the package-transitive-inputs
func).
Hi,
On Fri, 17 Feb 2023 at 21:27, Kyle Andrews wrote:
> For example:
>
> ```
> (build-system python-build-system #:python python-3.6)
> ```
>
> That would be quite convenient and in line with the level of complexity
> I was faced with when I took the conda approach before trying to use
> Guix.
Dear Edouard and Wojtek,
Thank you very much for your generous suggestions!
I would like to give you an update to share the state of my still
incomplete understanding after thinking about them.
With regards to this sort of thing:
```
(package-input-rewriting/spec
`(("python-prompt-toolkit"
As an example in this line of thought, a long time ago I submitted a
patch (since then reverted as it broke a lot of things) to use an
obsolete version of a python module, which was the only one that worked
with a specific module that hadn't updated its dependencies:
Hi Kyle,
Have you looked at the (package-input-rewriting) procedure described
towards the bottom of "Defining Package Variants"[1]?
You might also like to look at the not-exported
(package-with-explicit-python) proc defined in
guix/build-system/python.scm[2]. It is used to produce python2
Dear Guix,
I want to use the python-apted package in my manifest. That package is
not in Guix, but can readily be fetched from:
```
guix import pypi APTED > python-apted.scm
```
I just had to prefix the following modules to turn that into a package
definition as well as a manifest.
```
13 matches
Mail list logo
