2016-01-16 21:40 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2016-01-12 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>>
2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
>> stuff that often.
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-01-12 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> 2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>>>
> Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
> stuff that often.
> Exactly which guile-version are we aiming for?
2016-01-12 0:22 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>>
Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
stuff that often.
Exactly which guile-version are we aiming for?
>>>
>>> The non-existing 2.0.12.
David Kastrup writes:
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>>
Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
stuff that often.
Exactly which guile-version are we aiming for?
>>>
>>> The non-existing 2.0.12. Currently, the s
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>
>>> Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
>>> stuff that often.
>>> Exactly which guile-version are we aiming for?
>>
>> The non-existing 2.0.12. Currently, the stable-2.0 branch. The main
>> cha
2016-01-11 23:14 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Btw, it wasn't entirely clear to me that guilev2.x changes essential
>> stuff that often.
>> Exactly which guile-version are we aiming for?
>
> The non-existing 2.0.12. Currently, the stable-2.0 branch. The main
> challenge currently seems to be comp
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-01-10 21:26 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> 3. We have a branch
>>> remotes/origin/dev/guilev2
>>> Makes sense to checkout it?
>>> (It should, ofcourse, I'll test tomorrow)
>>
>> I've rebased it now, basically chucking one superseded commit.
2016-01-10 21:26 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 3. We have a branch
>> remotes/origin/dev/guilev2
>> Makes sense to checkout it?
>> (It should, ofcourse, I'll test tomorrow)
>
> I've rebased it now, basically chucking one superseded commit. It now
> contains two commits th
Thomas Morley writes:
> Current state:
> $ guile-2.0
> GNU Guile 2.0.11
> [...]
>
> I managed to run
> ../configure --enable-guile2
> without error and got a successful build with simple `make'
>
>
> The very first file I then tried to compile contained nothing else then:
>
> \version "2.19.36"
David Kastrup writes:
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 3. We have a branch
>> remotes/origin/dev/guilev2
>> Makes sense to checkout it?
>> (It should, ofcourse, I'll test tomorrow)
>
> I've rebased it now, basically chucking one superseded commit. It now
> contains two commits that likely don't hur
Thomas Morley writes:
> 3. We have a branch
> remotes/origin/dev/guilev2
> Makes sense to checkout it?
> (It should, ofcourse, I'll test tomorrow)
I've rebased it now, basically chucking one superseded commit. It now
contains two commits that likely don't hurt, but I am also skeptical
that eith
Current state:
2016-01-08 23:06 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley :
>> 2016-01-05 21:54 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
[...]
>> I don't know what the current Guile-2.0 situation is, but compiling
>> Guile-2.1 (namely master) is insane. It takes about a day on my
>> computer.
>
> Took me ~8h
>
> Now I'm at:
>
>
David Kastrup writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>
I don't know what the current Guile-2.0 situation is, but compiling
Guile-2.1 (namely master) is insane. It takes about a day on my
computer.
>>>
>>> Took me ~8h
>>
>> There is a “guile-next” package for GNU Guix, which makes it p
> On Jan 9, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote:
>
> There is a “guile-next” package for GNU Guix, which makes it possible to
> get a binary build of Guile 2.1.1 (built from the 2.1.1 snapshot on
> ftp://alpha.gnu.org).
Looks like there’s a Guile 2.0.11 package too:
https://www.gnu.org/soft
Ricardo Wurmus writes:
>>> I don't know what the current Guile-2.0 situation is, but compiling
>>> Guile-2.1 (namely master) is insane. It takes about a day on my
>>> computer.
>>
>> Took me ~8h
>
> There is a “guile-next” package for GNU Guix, which makes it possible
> to get a binary build of
>> I don't know what the current Guile-2.0 situation is, but compiling
>> Guile-2.1 (namely master) is insane. It takes about a day on my
>> computer.
>
> Took me ~8h
There is a “guile-next” package for GNU Guix, which makes it possible to
get a binary build of Guile 2.1.1 (built from the 2.1.1
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-01-08 23:52 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
> [...]
>>
>> I seem to remember you had to run meta/guile in order to have it find
>> its modules.
>
> Not sure what you mean.
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-1))
> scheme@(guile-user)>
2016-01-08 23:52 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
[...]
>
> I seem to remember you had to run meta/guile in order to have it find
> its modules.
Not sure what you mean.
scheme@(guile-user)> (use-modules (srfi srfi-1))
scheme@(guile-user)> last
$1 = #
scheme@(guile-user)> (last '
Thomas Morley writes:
> [...]@[...] /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/guile-2.0/bin$ ./guile
> GNU Guile 2.0.11
> Copyright (C) 1995-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Guile comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `,show w'.
> This program is free software, and you are welcome to redistr
19 matches
Mail list logo
