From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ng0 Subject: bug#25831: Expose http_proxy setting on GuixSD Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:50:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20170223175021.lj4molz5gyfyw264@wasp> References: <20170221171912.GB1656@jasmine> <87efyrwgrk.fsf@gnu.org> <20170221202654.GA16281@jasmine> <87r32qv9ho.fsf@gnu.org> <20170222192223.GA26356@jasmine> <8737f60ypb.fsf@gnu.org> <20170222202631.GB28813@jasmine> <20170223162038.lkwbyp2f3l7g7q4k@wasp> <20170223170545.GA12804@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34357) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgxVp-0006KZ-Q5 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:49:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgxVm-0002cZ-Ky for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:49:05 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55045) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cgxVm-0002cL-Gv for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:49:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cgxVm-0007Fv-4t for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 12:49:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170223170545.GA12804@jasmine> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Leo Famulari Cc: 25831-done@debbugs.gnu.org On 17-02-23 12:05:45, Leo Famulari wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 04:20:38PM +0000, ng0 wrote: > > Thanks! > > I was hoping this change (added 127.0.0.1:9050) in a test config would > > pick up the .onion of bayfront I have in there, but it didn't happen. > > Does it work on a system besides GuixSD? I will report once I have the option to test it. This can take some time. > > In the comments you mentioned https_proxy is at some point favored > > over http_proxy, so currently my only option is firewall rules then > > (which I will need anyway). > > I'm not sure which comment you are referring to. For now, https_proxy is > not supported, but I would like it to be implemented as soon as > possible. > > Sorry, not you but the COMMENT / FIXME / XXX in guix-download.