From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Clemmer Subject: bug#32646: emacs-guix doesn't build, because of guile-gcrypt Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:31:10 -0400 Message-ID: <878t49zaoh.fsf@gmail.com> References: <877ejzpx00.fsf@lassieur.org> <875zzjpwhi.fsf@lassieur.org> <87pnxrkn5f.fsf@gnu.org> <871sa64dzd.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43077) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fzNEV-0001Oy-TK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:32:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fzNEQ-000502-34 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:32:07 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:47500) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fzNEP-0004zw-UU for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:32:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1fzNEP-0002Zh-QZ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 10:32:01 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <871sa64dzd.fsf@gmail.com> 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: Alex Kost Cc: 32646@debbugs.gnu.org, =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=C3=A9ment?= Lassieur Alex Kost writes: > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s (2018-09-06 11:09 +0200) wrote: > >>> ice-9/boot-9.scm:752:25: In procedure dispatch-exception: >>> no code for module (guix hash) >>> make[2]: [Makefile:556: emacs-guix/hash.go] Error 1 (ignored) >> >> I suppose Emacs-Guix might need to use (gcrypt hash) instead. >> Any ideas, Alex? > > Ouch, there is no (guix hash) anymore. Looking at commit '57d70dbab * master origin/master gnu: Add yad.' it seems that 'guix hash' is removed but still documented. Is a re-implementation of 'guix hash' coming? Or is it the intent to remove 'guix hash'. If so, ISTM this is be a meaningful loss of guix usability.