* No default OpenJDK version? @ 2024-04-16 20:25 Vagrant Cascadian 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-04-16 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: guix-devel; +Cc: julien [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2551 bytes --] When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific version for each package definition... At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12. But there are quite a few versions to choose from: guix package -A openjdk | sort -V openjdk 9.181 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2 openjdk 10.46 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2 openjdk 11.0.22 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2 openjdk 12.33 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2 openjdk 13.0.14 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2 openjdk 14.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2 openjdk 15.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2 openjdk 16.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2 openjdk 17.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2 openjdk 18.0.2.1 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2 openjdk 19.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2 openjdk 20.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2 openjdk 21.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2 Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version happened to be present when it was added to guix. Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency... In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12. Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it... Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap chain of itself... And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)? Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis? live well, vagrant [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-16 20:25 No default OpenJDK version? Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-16 21:03 ` Attila Lendvai ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Julien Lepiller @ 2024-04-16 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit : >When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is >effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific >version for each package definition... > >At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12. > >But there are quite a few versions to choose from: > > guix package -A openjdk | sort -V > openjdk 9.181 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2 > openjdk 10.46 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2 > openjdk 11.0.22 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2 > openjdk 12.33 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2 > openjdk 13.0.14 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2 > openjdk 14.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2 > openjdk 15.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2 > openjdk 16.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2 > openjdk 17.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2 > openjdk 18.0.2.1 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2 > openjdk 19.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2 > openjdk 20.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2 > openjdk 21.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2 > >Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I >suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version >happened to be present when it was added to guix. > >Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency... > >In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with >the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and >some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12. > >Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the >current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it... > >Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest >version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap >chain of itself... > >And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what >versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses >openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)? > > >Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages >could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if >needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk >versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on >a case-by-case basis? > > >live well, > vagrant ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller @ 2024-04-16 21:03 ` Attila Lendvai 2024-04-16 21:50 ` Vagrant Cascadian 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala 2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Attila Lendvai @ 2024-04-16 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julien Lepiller; +Cc: Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel > Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build > system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still > have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so > I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… does that prevent the introduction of a newer default JDK and annotating the old java dependency on the (hopefully few) packages that fail to build with a newer default? -- • attila lendvai • PGP: 963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 -- “Malthus was right. It's hard to see how the solar system could support much more than 10^28 people or the universe more than 10^50.” — John McCarthy (1927–2011), father of Lisp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-16 21:03 ` Attila Lendvai @ 2024-04-16 21:50 ` Vagrant Cascadian 2024-04-17 4:58 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala 2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-04-16 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julien Lepiller, guix-devel [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2465 bytes --] On 2024-04-16, Julien Lepiller wrote: > Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build > system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still > have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so > I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… But for the packages that explicitly need to pull in openjdk: git grep 'openjdk[1-9]' | grep -v define-public | grep -v java.scm | nl 1 gnu/packages/android.scm: (native-inputs (list openjdk12)) 2 gnu/packages/apl.scm: (inputs (list bash-minimal openjdk18)) 3 gnu/packages/apl.scm: (native-inputs (list `(,openjdk18 "jdk") zip)) 4 gnu/packages/axoloti.scm: `(("openjdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") 5 gnu/packages/bioconductor.scm: (list (list openjdk11 "jdk") 6 gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm: #:jdk openjdk11)) 7 gnu/packages/cran.scm: ("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") 8 gnu/packages/diffoscope.scm: (list `(,openjdk12 "jdk") 9 gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm: (list emacs-ecukes emacs-espuds emacs-undercover openjdk9)) 10 gnu/packages/geo.scm: openjdk11)) 11 gnu/packages/geo.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk11 12 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 13 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 14 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 15 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 16 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 17 gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm: ("openjdk" ,openjdk14) 18 gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm: ("openjdk:jdk" ,openjdk14 "jdk") 19 gnu/packages/java-compression.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 20 gnu/packages/kodi.scm: openjdk9 ;like groovy 21 gnu/packages/mpi.scm: `(("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") 22 gnu/packages/pep.scm: `(,openjdk9 "jdk") which yml2)) It is not a crazy number of packages, but in cases like diffoscope and enjarify, which seem fairly compatible with arbitrary versions, it would be nice to have an unversioned option to specify? Maybe I confused things by talking about the "default" version, I guess I was wondering if it would make sense for an "openjdk-latest" or "openjdk-lts" or whatever color you want, just as long as it does not require specifying (and more importantly, keeping track of) the version of openjdk needed. live well, vagrant [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-16 21:50 ` Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-04-17 4:58 ` Julien Lepiller 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Julien Lepiller @ 2024-04-17 4:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel Makes sense, we can do that. Le 16 avril 2024 23:50:54 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit : >On 2024-04-16, Julien Lepiller wrote: >> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build >> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still >> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so >> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… > >But for the packages that explicitly need to pull in openjdk: > > git grep 'openjdk[1-9]' | grep -v define-public | grep -v java.scm | nl > 1 gnu/packages/android.scm: (native-inputs (list openjdk12)) > 2 gnu/packages/apl.scm: (inputs (list bash-minimal openjdk18)) > 3 gnu/packages/apl.scm: (native-inputs (list `(,openjdk18 "jdk") zip)) > 4 gnu/packages/axoloti.scm: `(("openjdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") > 5 gnu/packages/bioconductor.scm: (list (list openjdk11 "jdk") > 6 gnu/packages/bioinformatics.scm: #:jdk openjdk11)) > 7 gnu/packages/cran.scm: ("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") > 8 gnu/packages/diffoscope.scm: (list `(,openjdk12 "jdk") > 9 gnu/packages/emacs-xyz.scm: (list emacs-ecukes emacs-espuds emacs-undercover openjdk9)) > 10 gnu/packages/geo.scm: openjdk11)) > 11 gnu/packages/geo.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk11 > 12 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 13 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 14 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 15 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 16 gnu/packages/groovy.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 17 gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm: ("openjdk" ,openjdk14) > 18 gnu/packages/gstreamer.scm: ("openjdk:jdk" ,openjdk14 "jdk") > 19 gnu/packages/java-compression.scm: #:jdk ,openjdk9 > 20 gnu/packages/kodi.scm: openjdk9 ;like groovy > 21 gnu/packages/mpi.scm: `(("jdk" ,openjdk11 "jdk") > 22 gnu/packages/pep.scm: `(,openjdk9 "jdk") which yml2)) > > >It is not a crazy number of packages, but in cases like diffoscope and >enjarify, which seem fairly compatible with arbitrary versions, it would >be nice to have an unversioned option to specify? > >Maybe I confused things by talking about the "default" version, I guess >I was wondering if it would make sense for an "openjdk-latest" or >"openjdk-lts" or whatever color you want, just as long as it does not >require specifying (and more importantly, keeping track of) the version >of openjdk needed. > >live well, > vagrant ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-16 21:03 ` Attila Lendvai 2024-04-16 21:50 ` Vagrant Cascadian @ 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala 2024-04-21 5:31 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-22 17:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer 2 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Markku Korkeala @ 2024-04-20 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Julien Lepiller; +Cc: Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote: > Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… Hi, is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11 [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17 [3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java21 Best wishes, Markku > Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit : > >When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is > >effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific > >version for each package definition... > > > >At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12. > > > >But there are quite a few versions to choose from: > > > > guix package -A openjdk | sort -V > > openjdk 9.181 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2 > > openjdk 10.46 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2 > > openjdk 11.0.22 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2 > > openjdk 12.33 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2 > > openjdk 13.0.14 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2 > > openjdk 14.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2 > > openjdk 15.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2 > > openjdk 16.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2 > > openjdk 17.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2 > > openjdk 18.0.2.1 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2 > > openjdk 19.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2 > > openjdk 20.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2 > > openjdk 21.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2 > > > >Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I > >suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version > >happened to be present when it was added to guix. > > > >Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency... > > > >In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with > >the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and > >some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12. > > > >Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the > >current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it... > > > >Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest > >version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap > >chain of itself... > > > >And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what > >versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses > >openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)? > > > > > >Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages > >could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if > >needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk > >versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on > >a case-by-case basis? > > > > > >live well, > > vagrant > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala @ 2024-04-21 5:31 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-22 17:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Julien Lepiller @ 2024-04-21 5:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markku Korkeala; +Cc: Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel I think the first step would be to target openjdk 9, since it already introduces quite a lot of changes compared to java 8. To do it, I would suggest to change the default jdk in the ant-build-system and maven-build-system, and see what is broken, if it can simply be updated without breaking dependents, or if it (and its dependencies) needs to be built with an older jdk. Some packages are bootstrap packages that are quite old and will never support a newer jdk. For some of them, we can simply specify a source/target level (not sure it's supported by the build-system yet), but I remember trying and a few need java 5, which is no longer a supported level. I have already added support for java modules in the ant-build-system, and I just pushed a few updates to some packages that could not previously be built with java 9. Le 20 avril 2024 19:19:37 GMT+02:00, Markku Korkeala <markku.korkeala@iki.fi> a écrit : >On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote: >> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… > >Hi, > >is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with >it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long >experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora >and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The >pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help. > >[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java11 >[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17 >[3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java21 > >Best wishes, >Markku > >> Le 16 avril 2024 22:25:33 GMT+02:00, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> a écrit : >> >When recently taking a look at diffoscope, I was reminded that there is >> >effectively no default openjdk version, you have to pick a specific >> >version for each package definition... >> > >> >At some time in diffoscope's history, that was openjdk@12. >> > >> >But there are quite a few versions to choose from: >> > >> > guix package -A openjdk | sort -V >> > openjdk 9.181 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:869:2 >> > openjdk 10.46 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1140:2 >> > openjdk 11.0.22 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1218:2 >> > openjdk 12.33 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1536:2 >> > openjdk 13.0.14 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1576:2 >> > openjdk 14.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1583:2 >> > openjdk 15.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1598:2 >> > openjdk 16.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1617:2 >> > openjdk 17.0.10 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1625:2 >> > openjdk 18.0.2.1 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1642:2 >> > openjdk 19.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1646:2 >> > openjdk 20.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1663:2 >> > openjdk 21.0.2 out,jdk,doc gnu/packages/java.scm:1667:2 >> > >> >Some packages may only work with a specific era of openjdk, but I >> >suspect many of the packages in guix just picked whatever version >> >happened to be present when it was added to guix. >> > >> >Which makes it hard to know when to update the openjdk dependency... >> > >> >In the diffoscope case, it seems to have work fine with openjdk@21, with >> >the only result being that some openjdk-version-specific tests pass and >> >some are skipped as a one-for-one trade compared to the old openjdk@12. >> > >> >Alternately, I would be tempted to switch to openjdk@17, which is the >> >current default in Debian, so has a little more testing behind it... >> > >> >Though there is a bit of a perverse incentive to stick with the oldest >> >version that still works, due to openjdk having a very long bootstrap >> >chain of itself... >> > >> >And then the question gets to be of diffoscope's dependencies, what >> >versions of openjdk do they pull in (notably enjarify, which uses >> >openjdk@12, although that also seems to work ok with openjdk@21)? >> > >> > >> >Would it make sense to have an openjdk "default" version, so packages >> >could instead depend on that, and only need to specify a version if >> >needed for some particular reason? Or is compatibility across openjdk >> >versions troublesome enough that it really always needs to be handled on >> >a case-by-case basis? >> > >> > >> >live well, >> > vagrant >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: No default OpenJDK version? 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala 2024-04-21 5:31 ` Julien Lepiller @ 2024-04-22 17:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Maxim Cournoyer @ 2024-04-22 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markku Korkeala; +Cc: Julien Lepiller, Vagrant Cascadian, guix-devel Hi, Markku Korkeala <markku.korkeala@iki.fi> writes: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote: >> Currently, most java packages use the implicit jdk from the build >> system (ant- or maven-build-system), which is… icedtea@8. We still >> have quite a lot of old packages that don't build with openjdk9, so >> I'm not sure when we can update the default jdk… > > Hi, > > is there effort to update the default jdk at some point? I could help with > it. I'm not familiar with the guix java build systems, but have long > experience as a Java developer. I also maintain few java packages in Fedora > and saw the transition to to jdk11 [1], jdk17 [2] and now to jdk21 [3]. The > pages have documented common issues and workarounds, which might help. I'm not aware of such effort in Guix currently, so feel free to spearhead it! It'd be beneficial, although I supposed difficult to achieve due to bootstrap reasons, perhaps. -- Thanks, Maxim ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-04-22 17:32 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-04-16 20:25 No default OpenJDK version? Vagrant Cascadian 2024-04-16 20:37 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-16 21:03 ` Attila Lendvai 2024-04-16 21:50 ` Vagrant Cascadian 2024-04-17 4:58 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-20 17:19 ` Markku Korkeala 2024-04-21 5:31 ` Julien Lepiller 2024-04-22 17:32 ` Maxim Cournoyer
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).