From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Leo Famulari Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add httpfs2. Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:05:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20170104050556.GJ13674@jasmine> References: <20170103210441.2770-1-me@tobias.gr> <20170104042026.GB13674@jasmine> <18b5c29e-6aa9-7fb8-2b7d-58594c9332b5@tobias.gr> <59d5e7f2-06d3-2378-3443-5dae1871af0d@tobias.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOdlx-0001GJ-9g for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:06:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOdlu-0006KU-5v for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:06:01 -0500 Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:38479) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cOdlu-0006KJ-1C for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2017 00:05:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59d5e7f2-06d3-2378-3443-5dae1871af0d@tobias.gr> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 05:55:22AM +0100, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > Leo & others, >=20 > On 04/01/17 05:37, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote: > > On 04/01/17 05:20, Leo Famulari wrote: > >> If you wanted to do extra work, I think it would also fit in a new FUSE > >> package module. > >=20 > > Eh, why not. It's that or study. >=20 > ...or file-systems.scm? >=20 > I'm ambivalent about implementation choice being the right abstraction > level. Fair point. It's up to you. I merely thought that the web module was not perfect for this package :) --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEsFFZSPHn08G5gDigJkb6MLrKfwgFAlhsgrQACgkQJkb6MLrK fwi9Kg//TFfJk9CzEMZBJ/36izl/W2bT569gJ156aKerpjX6ZFKST2cHMjeqnKJ2 nZ+iRuJf9qRtbRpuwrofTKygfV4nYQkQ5gULOoh1HzsxWRJOfVwp2tspXzIpMU8R pd8BmAWHcf2ytFASWJg4qVQ2P0RTqF+6Er3xrfcN5lLuDc3XJ4ciF/cK5m8AOh38 mtSERIcRg66zivKWvi9pKZPKzuOCn2AeZMEKWIsrkoCgsRPrGClIAf+kWA0LUiOp wumdDuDmv+LQ6ONKJk9BE+6a9Xn6SKMTZEevmXMbK8Wi5awJ983dRB7QXad8eIFZ qwz44eS5jYsMGT8biQjUz6WhFlRSnTRToxxb1BZfo6v6HnRWsBJxk0geFAI5gDXl ZD+bsFTdg2vqziC66J5RHRA+3HxrsYHNlHJ85gl1g3JCeoB0PPm8Q8iPk9tYglyU eMDXH92h//LtNfkEykT2IDQ4Bg8MmFJna+VDh/aqZeQqqCt8pyoFEdJwC6MNLvJt Lbqat3ogSOZGqnuZmKsQNKjw4zSnNU90l9glnWoO2BacFAmo3gvaNT94Dx5qBmxa pN87+Kg5NSOSdeT9TQF+W3G1Ym13M8JrbSD/1dczptsOCw96pL3/fshPGHgq4RBi occIJ2KRdDBmZe4fl5VePMlTvgYG1hOfkC8ORNI76z/FJyILUjA= =z752 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--